WildlifeMgmtPlan Cougars Nov2012B

1
ISBN No. 978-1-4601-1318-9 (PDF Version)

Copies of this report are available from the Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
Web Site: esrd.alberta.ca
Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta
Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8
Preface
This plan represents the departments goals,
objectives and management strategies for the
management of cougars in Alberta. It will periodically be
reviewed and updated as necessary. Implementation will
be subject to priorities established during the budgeting
process. This plan includes historical information up to
the spring of 2012.
Note: for the purposes of this publication, information is
presented in a format that corresponds to fiscal years.
Data for the year 2010, for example, corresponds to April
1, 2010 to March 31, 2011
3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 5
Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta Executive Summary ................................................... 6
1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 8
2.0. Background ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Biology ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.1.1 Habitat................................................................................................................................ 9
2.1.2 Population dynamics ........................................................................................................ 12
2.1.3 Cougar-prey relationships ................................................................................................ 18
2.2 Cougar-Human Conflict .................................................................................................. 23
2.2.1 Public views on cougars ................................................................................................... 23
2.2.2 Root causes of conflicts.................................................................................................... 24
2.2.3 Methods to reduce conflict and increase tolerance ........................................................ 26
2.3 Historic and Current Status in Alberta ............................................................................ 28
2.3.1 Numbers and Distribution................................................................................................ 28
2.3.2 Hunting ............................................................................................................................. 31
2.3.3 Non Hunting Mortality ..................................................................................................... 39
2.3.4 Cougar-Prey Relationships ............................................................................................... 40
2.3.5 Cougar-Human Conflicts .................................................................................................. 41
2.3.6 Data Collection Guidelines ............................................................................................... 44
2.3.7 Economic Aspects ............................................................................................................ 44
2.4 Summary and Management Challenges ......................................................................... 45
3.0 Management Plan ............................................................................................................. 46
3.1 Policy Framework .......................................................................................................... 46
3.1.1 Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 46
3.1.2 Resource Allocation ......................................................................................................... 46
3.1.3 Recreational and Educational Use ................................................................................... 46
3.1.4 Commercial Use ............................................................................................................... 47
3.1.5 Protection of Private Property ......................................................................................... 47
3.2 Management Goals and Objectives ................................................................................... 48
3.2.2 Resource Allocation ......................................................................................................... 48
4
3.2.3 Recreational Use .............................................................................................................. 48
3.2.4 Commercial Use ............................................................................................................... 48
3.2.6 Science and Education ..................................................................................................... 49
3.3 Management Strategies ................................................................................................. 49
3.3.2 Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 49
3.3.3 Resource Allocation and Recreational Use ...................................................................... 51
3.3.4 Managing Commercial Use .............................................................................................. 59
3.3.5 Managing Cougar-Prey Relationships .............................................................................. 60
3.3.6 Managing Non-consumptive Use ..................................................................................... 60
3.3.7 Managing Non Hunting Mortality .................................................................................... 59
3.3.9 Managing Scientific and Educational Use ........................................................................ 62
4.0 Management Plan Application .......................................................................................... 63
4.1 Provincial Summary ....................................................................................................... 63
4.2 Regional Perspectives .................................................................................................... 63
4.2.1 Mountains and Foothills .................................................................................................. 63
4.2.2 Prairies and Parkland ....................................................................................................... 63
4.2.3 Boreal Forest .................................................................................................................... 64
5.0 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................. 65
Acknowledgements
This plan was prepared by Nathan F. Webb, Aliah A. Knopff, Kyle H. Knopff, and James R. Allen for the
Wildlife Management Branch of Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (Ron
Bjorge, Executive Director).Much of the information in this plan is based on the previous version, which
was compiled by Martin Jalkotzy, Ian Ross, and John Gunson.
Drafts of the plan were reviewed internally by Curtis Stambaugh, Mike Russell, and Pat Dunford. External
reviews were conducted by Mark Boyce (University of Alberta), Tony Hamilton (British Columbia Ministry
of Environment), and Jim Williams (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks), and by Drajs Vujnovic, Bill Dolan,
and John Paczkowski in Alberta Parks.
Editorial services were provided by Jessica Potter.
The department wishes to thank the numerous stakeholders, especially representatives of the Alberta
Tree Hound Association, Prairie Houndsmen Association, Alberta Professional Outfitters Society, and
Alberta Fish and Game Association, who contributed valuable feedback and insight during the
development of this plan.

Executive Summary
Historical Populations and Management
Cougar populations in Alberta have undergone significant numerical decline and range
contraction as a result of prey declines and direct persecution that accompanied human settlement.
Cougars probably reached their lowest numbers in the early 1900s, and may have been relegated
primarily to remote mountainous areas at that time. Cougar populations likely increased throughout
the early part of the 20th century; however, they were subject to bounty payments from 1937 to
1964, which may have limited population growth. From the time they were first declared big game
animals and managed with regulated hunting seasons in 1971, cougar populations have increased in
number and expanded in distribution. A quota system was implemented in 1990 to ensure that
hunting harvests were sustainable even as interest in cougar hunting increased. Cougar
management was adjusted throughout the 1990s and 2000s to reflect a growing population, with
several new hunting areas added as cougars continued to expand their range.
Current Status
Approximately 2,050 cougars are estimated to exist in Alberta. Populations are highest in the
mountains, foothills, and southern boreal forest, gradually declining from south to north. Cougars
are well established in much of the Parkland region and in the Cypress Hills, and appear to make use
of major river drainages in the Prairies region. An abundant cougar population in Alberta is reflective
of plentiful ungulate herds, and climate change coupled with human-caused landscape modification
should only improve conservation prospects for the species.
Management Goals, Objectives and Strategies for the Future

Cougars are appreciated for their intrinsic value and as a trophy game animal, yet they can cause
conflicts with people through predation on pets and livestock, and can create public safety
concerns. Cougar management in Alberta will reflect a need to balance cougar conservation with
strong public sentiment that opposes the presence of cougars in rural residential and agricultural
landscapes. Management objectives and strategies will include:
Ensuring that cougar populations are protected from significant decline and that viable
populations are maintained.
Maximizing the benefits to Albertans through optimum allocation of the cougar resource
amongst recreational, commercial, and other users.
7
Maximizing the recreational benefits and enjoyment to Albertans from the cougar resource
through the provision of a variety of recreational opportunities, including viewing and hunting.
Providing a commercial benefit to Albertans from the cougar resource through tourism and
non-resident hunting.
Minimizing property damage and risks to human safety caused by cougars by ensuring that
cougar predation on livestock and pets is reduced as much as possible, continuing the Wildlife
Predator Compensation Program, and removing or relocating offending individuals.
Promoting and encouraging scientific and educational activity to enhance knowledge of
cougars.
1.0 Introduction
The cougar (Puma concolor) is one of North Americas most charismatic wildlife species.
Albertans have generally demonstrated an increasing tolerance for the continued sustainable
management of the species, yet public opinion surveys still indicate an almost irrational fear
towards this large cat (Knopff 2011). Recent research in Alberta and elsewhere has shown that
cougars are extremely capable of living in close proximity to human activity, perhaps more so than
any other large carnivore in North America (Sweanor et al. 2008, Orlando et al. 2008, Knopff 2011).
This has created new challenges for both the wildlife managers who are responsible for cougar
management and for rural residents that now share their backyard with cougars.
Albertas first Cougar Management Plan (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1992) was based
on a comprehensive research project in Sheep River and was used to guide cougar management in
the province for two decades. This management plan provided recreational opportunities and
mechanisms to deal with cougar-human conflict and achieved the objective of a slowly expanding
and increasing cougar population. Over the term of that plan, knowledge of cougar ecology,
population dynamics and response to hunting increased, with research conducted across North
America including a seminal study on cougar predation habitats completed in west-central Alberta.
At the same time, wildlife managers have adaptively modified management objectives and
strategies from the 1992 plan through changes in the hunting regulation to address an increasing
interest in cougar hunting, an increasing cougar population, and increasing conflicts with humans.
By the late 2000s, it became clear that substantial changes to the provinces Cougar Management
Plan were needed in order to reflect the new reality of an abundant, widely distributed cougar
population that was interacting with residents on a more regular basis.
Extensive consultations with stakeholders, public opinion surveys, and discussion with other
jurisdictions have all contributed to the development of this revised Cougar Management Plan for
Alberta. This plan reviews the biology of cougars, as well as their history and management in
Alberta. It also summarizes the current status and use of the species in the province. Finally, it
outlines goals, objectives and management strategies for the future conservation and use of cougars
in Alberta.
2.0. Background
2.1 Biology
2.1.1 Habitat
Cougars are habitat generalists, making them among the most adaptable and wide ranging
mammals in the world. Their range extends from northern Alberta and British Columbia to the
southern tip of South America. In between, cougars thrive in a wide range of ecosystems including
deserts, equatorial jungles, boreal forests, mountains, and swamps. Large expanses of open habitats
without substantial forest cover or topographic structure (e.g., prairies) are rarely used by cougars,
nor are places where human populations are extremely dense (e.g., cities). Even where physical
habitat characteristics are appropriate for cougars, sufficient prey must be available to support a
cougar population. Prey availability, coupled with human tolerance, are therefore key components
of cougar habitat.
2.1.1.1 Home range characteristics

Beier (2009) identifies a set of three landscape level characteristics that meet cougar home range
requirements:
1. adequate availability of prey;
2. ample vegetative cover or topographic ruggedness for hunting, security during feeding and
kitten rearing; and
3. limited anthropogenic disturbance and persecution.
In Alberta, these characteristics are met in many mountainous and forested natural regions and
sub-regions. Although cougars avoid large expanses of open habitat in agricultural or prairie
landscapes, they can take advantage of islands of forested habitat to establish home ranges, such as
the Cypress Hills in southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan. In fact, cougars in the
Cypress Hills occur at some of the highest densities recorded in North America, probably because of
high prey density that occurs in an island of available habitat (Bacon et al. 2009). The fact that
cougars tend to avoid open habitats led Van Dyke et al. (1986) to suggest that cougars will not
establish home ranges that overlap recent logging activity. However, data from GPS collared cougars
in west-central Alberta disputes this claim and several cougars had home ranges encompassing not
only recently logged areas but also on-going logging activity. Oil and gas development and
associated linear features (e.g., roads, pipelines, and seismic lines) also can be successfully
10
incorporated into cougar home ranges (Knopff 2011). In some cases, cougars may benefit from
forest openings created by industrial development and agriculture because it increases the amount
of edge habitat within the home range. Cougars use edge habitat for hunting (Laundre and
Hernandez 2003), exhibit strong selection for this habitat type (Knopff 2011), and sufficient edge
habitat may be an important requirement for home range establishment (Laundre and Loxterman
2007).
Cougars can incorporate areas of high human activity such as farms, ranches and small rural
communities into their home range (Knopff 2011). Even residential developments at the edge of
urban areas can be incorporated into cougar home ranges if they maintain sufficient natural
landscape features and attract prey animals such as deer (Knopff 2011, Kertson et al. 2011).
However, there appears to be a threshold of human use beyond which cougars do not incorporate
anthropogenic landscapes into their home ranges. For example, cougars tend to select home ranges
that abut rather than encompass major roads (e.g. high volume divided highways) and high density
urban development (Dixon and Beier 2002, Arundel et al. 2007, Orlando et al. 2008, Kertson et al.
2011). Forays into urban areas are rare and tend to occur along natural areas such as forested
ravines or river valleys (Beier 1995). Similarly, although cougar home ranges do occur in agricultural
landscapes, home ranges may be more likely to abut rather than encompass large areas of high
density agriculture where forest cover is limited.
Cougar home range size is highly variable, and depends on a number of ecological factors
including prey availability and landscape features within the home range (Logan and Sweanor 2001,
Grigione et al. 2002, Laundre and Loxterman 2007). Home ranges are larger when habitat is of lower
quality or prey less abundant; prey catchability may be more important than prey abundance, and
cougar home ranges may be larger where prey is abundant but less available in appropriate hunting
habitat (Laundre and Loxterman 2007). Male cougars also have much larger home ranges than
females. In Alberta, annual adult female cougar home ranges have been reported between 62 km2
and 412 km2 and annual adult male home ranges between 221 km2 and 1,311 km2 (Ross and
Jalkotzy 1992, Knopff 2010). Annual areas used by young cougars in the process of establishing a
home range can be much larger, and an area of 3,502 km2 was used by one sub-adult male in west
central Alberta over the course of 212 days (Knopff 2010).
Cougars in Alberta establish home ranges in a variety of habitats ranging from backcountry areas
in the Rocky Mountains to rural agricultural landscapes adjacent to urban centers (Knopff 2011).
Recently, cougars appear to have been expanding their range north into the boreal forest and
establishing home ranges there (Anderson et al. 2009, Knopff et al. 2013). Cougars do not establish
home ranges in the open prairies and agricultural developments outside of linear riparian habitats in
the southeast of the province, and home ranges do not overlap major urban centers.
11
2.1.1.2 Habitat use within home ranges
In forested environments, the habitat feature most consistently selected by cougars is the edge
of forests and open areas, which may provide optimal hunting opportunities (Logan and Irwin 1985,
Laing 1988, Dickson and Beier 2002, Holmes and Laundr 2006, Laundre and Loxterman 2007,
Knopff 2011). Although open areas are required for creating the edges selected by cougars, open
habitats tend to be avoided (Logan and Irwin 1985, Williams et al. 1995, Dickson and Beier 2002,
Knopff 2011). Similarly, large expanses of contiguous forest without edge habitat are avoided by
cougars (Knopff 2011). Cougars do use non-treed habitats where other landscape features facilitate
stalking prey. For example, in mountainous terrain, cougars use rock outcrops and other variations
in topography to conceal themselves as they approach prey (Logan and Irwin 1985, Logan and
Sweanor 2001).
Other features that tend to be selected by cougars include riparian zones (Dickson and Beier
2002), shrub habitat (Logan and Irwin 1985, Dickson and Beier 2002, Knopff 2011), and areas of
topographic ruggedness such as draws, canyons, rock outcrops (Logan and Irwin 1985, Laing 1988,
Arundel et al. 2007). Cougars select almost impenetrable vegetation for kitten den sites (Beier et al.
1995). Features generally avoided by cougars include grasslands (Dickson and Beier 2002) and
agricultural/pastureland (Laing 1988). Overall, cougars tend to avoid anthropogenic features
including roads, buildings, well-sites, and pipelines (Van Dyke et al. 1986, Orlando et al. 2008,
Kertson et al. 2011, Knopff 2011).
Variation in selection occurs between study areas and within study areas between individual
cougars. For example, instead of seeking higher topographic ruggedness, cougars in one southern
California study selected flatter terrain (Dickson and Beier 2002). In west-central Alberta, cougars
exhibited substantial individual variation in habitat selection patterns, such that some cougars
avoided habitats that others selected (Knopff 2011). Variation in selection patterns demonstrates
the flexibility in cougar habitat use and their ability to adapt to changing conditions. Flexible habitat
use appears to be a key reason that cougars are able to adapt to anthropogenic landscape change
and establish home ranges in rural landscapes and in urban-wildland interfaces.
One way cougars adapt to human use of the landscape is to alter habitat selection temporally
(Ruth 1991, Orlando et al. 2008, Sweanor et al. 2008, Knopff 2011). Cougars avoid areas of human
activity or development during the day but will use these same areas more frequently at night. For
example, in Clearwater County, Alberta, cougars used forest patches and river valleys far from
human activity during the day, but increased their use of edges of agricultural fields and reduced
their avoidance of buildings and roads at night when people are less active (Knopff 2011).
Another way cougars adapt to anthropogenic landscape change is to alter their fundamental
response to those features. For instance, cougars in remote areas may strongly avoid anthropogenic
12
features such as roads and well sites, whereas cougars living with more of these features within
their home ranges may adapt to them and avoid them less. In the Clearwater County, cougars
avoided most anthropogenic landscape features in wilderness areas but cougars in more developed
areas appeared to habituate to some anthropogenic landscape features such as pipelines, seismic
lines, well sites, and buildings (Knopff 2011). Cougars increased their avoidance of roads in more
developed areas, possibly because of increased traffic volumes (Knopff 2011). Data on habitat
selection obtained from cougars in remote areas, therefore, may not predict cougar space use well
in more developed landscapes.
2.1.2 Population dynamics

Extensive research has been conducted on cougar population dynamics in western North
America, especially for hunted populations. Data specific to Alberta are available primarily from a
long-term study at Sheep River during the 1980s, which provides the best provincial data on cougar
population dynamics. These data have been supplemented with information from more recent
studies, particularly the Central East Slopes Cougar Study conducted between 2005 and 2008 in
Clearwater County.
2.1.2.1 Reproduction
Although adult cougars are generally solitary animals, reproduction is achieved using short-term
mating associations within a polygamous mating system. Female cougars are not territorial and
substantial home range overlap is common in most places where cougars have been studied,
including in Alberta (Logan and Sweanor 2009, Bacon 2010, Knopff 2010). Male cougars are
territorial and their territories are normally several times larger than female home ranges in the
same area, providing potential reproductive opportunities with multiple females. Males actively
defend territories and their access to females, with fights between males often resulting in severe
injury or death (Logan and Sweanor 2001, Lotz 2005, Logan and Sweanor 2009). Nevertheless, adult
male territories do overlap (Logan and Sweanor 2009, Knopff 2010), sometimes by as much as 50 to
70 per cent (Logan and Sweanor 2001). Therefore, in addition to being polygamous, cougar mating
systems also can be promiscuous (i.e., both sexes can breed with multiple individuals of the
opposite sex), and female cougars sometimes mate with several males during a single estrous cycle
(Logan and Sweanor 2001).
Female cougars produce their first litters anywhere from 22 to 40 months of age (Logan and
Sweanor 2001). In Alberta, six known-age females had their first litters at an average age of 30
months (Ross and Jalkotzy 1992). Females are capable of coming into estrous repeatedly if they are
unable to find a mate or if they lose a litter. Consequently, cougars can breed and produce young at
any time of the year, although studies in western North America show that births tend to peak
during July to September and are at their lowest during January to February (Cougar Management
13
Guidelines Working Group 2005). When the late stages of gestation and kitten birth occur during
spring and summer, female cougars can take advantage of the increase in vulnerable young
ungulate prey (Knopff et al. 2010a). In Alberta and other northern jurisdictions, extreme winter
weather may also reduce survival of newborn kittens. Average gestation for cougars is 92 days
(Anderson 1983; Logan and Sweanor 2001) and litters normally consist of two to three kittens (Ross
and Jalkotzy 1992, Murphy 1998, Logan and Sweanor 2001). Litter size may vary as a function of
environmental conditions such as prey availability (Stoner et al. 2006, Quigley and Hornocker 2009).
Female cougars give birth to kittens at nursery sites, which typically consist of heavy cover,
including deadfall, rocks, tree wells, and sometimes even small caves (Beier et al. 1995). Kittens are
born spotted with their eyes and ears closed. They remain at the nursery site for the first six to
eight weeks of life as they gain their sight and hearing and begin to move around, although mothers
may move kittens if the site is disturbed. During the nursery phase, a mother cougar must leave her
kittens alone when she is hunting, sometimes travelling substantial distances from the nursery site.
After about eight weeks, kittens begin traveling to kills with their mothers; however, mothers
continue to spend substantial time apart from the kittens while hunting (Laundre and Hernandez
2008). Kittens remain with their mothers until they are one to two years old. By this time, young
males can be substantially larger than their mothers, and family groups are sometimes confused for
mating associations or even a pack of adult cougars travelling together. As a result of kitten
dependence over such long periods, cougars exhibit long inter-birth intervals (e.g., 17 to 24 months;
Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Lindzey et al. 1994, Logan and Sweanor 2001).
Despite long inter-birth intervals, cougars are capable of relatively rapid population growth
compared to some other large carnivores (e.g., grizzly bears or wolverines). Several aspects of
female cougar ecology provide potential for a relatively high natural rate of increase:
1) Females reach sexual maturity and produce large litters at a young age;
2) All adult females in the population can reproduce;
3) If a litter is lost, females can quickly become pregnant again; and
4) A lack of female territoriality permits cougars to congregate where prey are abundant
(Pierce et al. 2000a; Logan and Sweanor 2001).
The cougar population at Sheep River, for example, grew by as much as 55 per cent (2.7 cougars
per 100km2 to 4.2 cougars per 100km2) during 1984 to 1989, a result driven primarily by local
recruitment of adult females (Ross and Jalkotzy 1992). Importantly, cougar population growth
appears to be limited by prey availability (Pierce et al. 2000a; Logan and Sweanor 2001), not a
territorial land tenure system as originally postulated by Seidensticker et al. (1973).
Adult male cougars do not participate in kitten rearing. Indeed, adult males sometimes kill
kittens when they encounter them, a behaviour that may be part of the male cougar reproductive
14
strategy. Killing kittens sired by unrelated males can increase the reproductive success of the
infanticidal male by providing an opportunity to breed with the female sooner, and this behaviour
may be relatively common in heavily hunted populations (Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Logan and
Sweanor 2001, Cooley et al. 2009). This contradicts the hypothesis that hunting male cougars
increases kitten survival, which is a belief that was held by many cougar outfitters in Alberta in the
late 1990s (Ross and Stevens 1999).
2.1.2.2 Mortality and Survival

Primary causes of mortality in cougar populations vary depending on whether cougars are
hunted or not. Where they are hunted, most adult cougars are killed by hunters (Anderson and
Lindzey 2005, Lambert et al. 2006, Stoner et al. 2006, Cooley et al. 2009, Robinson and DeSimone
2011). Where cougars are not hunted, adults tend to be killed by other cougars (Hemker et al. 1984,
Logan and Sweanor 2001), by vehicles, and through removal by management agencies due to
conflict (Beier and Barrett 1993).
Causes of kitten mortality have been less well studied. In populations where kittens were
monitored, most deaths are a result of natural causes such as starvation or infanticide by males
(Logan and Sweanor 2001, Cooley et al. 2009). In most North American states and provinces,
including Alberta, hunters are not permitted to shoot spotted kittens or females cougars travelling
with spotted kittens. Consequently, no direct kitten mortality due to hunting is expected in these
jurisdictions. However, hunting can contribute to kitten mortality indirectly in one of two ways. First,
where hunting creates high male turnover, greater numbers of kittens may die from infanticide
attributed to the subsequent movement of unrelated males into the area (Ross and Jalkotzy 1992,
Logan and Sweanor 2001, Cooley et al. 2009). Second, because mothers spend substantial time
away from their kittens (Laundre and Hernandez 2008), hunters may inadvertently kill females that
have dependent kittens because the female is traveling alone (i.e., does not appear to have kittens).
Recent research in Montana indicates that in hunted populations, starvation of orphaned kittens
may be more common than death by infanticide (Robinson and DeSimone 2011). The extent to
which dependent kittens are orphaned by hunters is unknown, but may be substantial in some
areas. In a heavily hunted management unit in Utah, at least 11 kittens from five litters were
orphaned when their mothers were killed due to hunting or depredation control (Stoner et al.
2006). In west-central Alberta, two of seven adult females killed by humans (one hunter harvest;
one accidental snaring) had dependent kittens. On the other hand, no kitten orphaning was
documented during a large-scale study of cougar survival and mortality in a heavily hunted area in
Washington (Cooley et al. 2009).
Cougars are hunted in Alberta and hunting is the primary source of adult cougar mortality on
provincial lands. During 1981 to 1989, the Sheep River Cougar Study documented 27 mortalities of
15
marked cougars. Of these, 63 per cent were killed by licensed hunters (Ross and Jalkotzy 1992; Table
1). Similarly, during 2005 to 2010, the Central East Slopes Cougar Study documented 22
representative mortalities of marked animals in the Clearwater County, of which 68 per cent were
killed by licensed hunters (Knopff 2010; Table 1). Accidental trapping was also an important
mortality source in the Central East Slopes Cougar Study (Table 2.1), and number of cougars snared
by trappers targeting wolves in Alberta has been increasing since 1997 (Knopff et al. 2010b).
Table 2.1. Mortality of radio-collared cougars in two Alberta research projects
Sheep River Study
Central East Slopes Cougar

Study (2005 2010)
(1981-1989)
Mortality Cause
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Legal Harvest
17
63
15
68
Illegal Kill
Accidental
18
Male Cougar
11
Natural Accident
Disease
Problem
Unknown
11
Total
27
Trapping
Animal/Landowner
Kill
22
Although no collared cougars were killed by other cougars, collared adult male cougars killed 2 un-collared cougars
during the study
In Albertas protected areas (e.g., National and Provincial Parks), natural sources of mortality
may dominate, but most adult cougars in Alberta probably die as a direct result of human activities
(e.g., 67 per cent in Sheep River and 95 per cent in the Clearwater County). Although human caused
16
mortality, especially hunting, is likely the primary source of cougar mortality in many jurisdictions,
including Alberta, the effect of human-caused mortality on local or regional cougar populations
depends on the extent to which mortality is compensatory or additive, annual survival rates for
individual cougars, and whether or not source-sink dynamics are operating at large spatial scales.
Compensatory mortality occurs when reductions in population size result in density-dependent
increases in birth rates, survival, or immigration that compensate for lost individuals.
Compensatory mortality is central to sustainable harvest of wildlife populations because it provides
increased opportunity to harvest a population without causing long-term decline (Caughley and
Sinclair 1994, Boyce et al. 1999, Czetwertynski et al. 2007). Quigley and Hornocker (2009) suggest
that human-caused cougar mortality is often compensated for in cougar populations by reductions
in natural mortality. This view is consistent with a number of studies that found low rates of natural
mortality in hunted cougar populations (Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Anderson and Lindzey 2005,
Lambert et al. 2006, Knopff et al. 2010b), in contrast with higher rates of natural mortality found in
unhunted populations (Hemker et al. 1984, Beier and Barrett 1993, Logan and Sweanor 2001). On
the other hand, some recent studies have found that hunting mortality was not compensated for by
reduced natural mortality, increased reproduction, or higher kitten survival, suggesting that hunting
mortality is largely additive (Cooley et al. 2009, Robinson and DeSimone 2011). However, in both of
these cases, population growth rates were influenced by high rates of immigration (Robinson et al.
2008, Cooley et al. 2009, Robinson and DeSimone 2011), indicating that immigration may provide an
alternative means via which populations can compensate for high rates of mortality.
Cougar populations appear to be capable of accommodating substantial harvest. A non-hunted
cougar population in Utah recovered from a 27 per cent experimental reduction in resident adults in
just nine months (Lindzey et al. 1992). Logan and Sweanor (2001) experimentally reduced a cougar
population in New Mexico to less than half of the original number of adults and the population
subsequently grew rapidly, recovering over a two year period. Similarly, Anderson and Lindzey
(2005) found that after a 66 per cent population reduction due to heavy hunting in Wyoming (i.e.,
43 per cent of the population removed annually for two years), the population recovered within
three years when hunting pressure was reduced to 18 per cent annual removal. In one Washington
study, an attempt to reduce a cougar population through liberal hunter harvest was unsuccessful,
despite removing more than 24 per cent of cougars annually through hunting (Robinson et al. 2008).
However, sustained annual harvest of greater than 40 per cent of adult cougars over four years for a
heavily hunted population in Utah caused rapid population decline and reduced age structure over a
large area, resulting in slow recovery when hunting pressure dropped below 30 per cent annual
harvest (Stoner et al. 2006).
In Alberta, annual cougar survival was high at Sheep River during a period of light harvest in the
1980s, and the population grew rapidly (Ross and Jalkotzy 1992). During 2005 to 2008 in Clearwater
17
County, heavy hunter harvest and incidental snaring by trappers resulted in estimated annual
survival for independent females of 70 per cent (95 per cent CI 53 to 87 per cent), annual survival
for independent males of 60 per cent (95 per cent CI 38 to 84 per cent), and annual population level
survival of 67 per cent (95 per cent CI 53 to 81 per cent), which may have put the local population at
risk of decline (Knopff et al. 2010b). Available evidence suggests that cougar population may decline
when total annual adult cougar survival is sustained below 60 to 70 per cent and when female
survival is sustained below 75 to 80 per cent (Anderson and Lindzey 2005, Lambert et al. 2006,
Stoner et al. 2006). However, variation in the ability of cougar populations to sustain harvest will
depend on the spatial scale over which heavy harvest occurs and the dynamics of adjacent
populations which may supply immigrants in a source-sink population framework (Robinson et al.
2008).
2.1.2.3 Dispersal and source-sink dynamics

Cougars have excellent dispersal capabilities. Male cougars almost always disperse, whereas
some females choose to stay close to their natal area, setting up home ranges that partially overlap
with that of their mother (Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Logan and Sweanor 2001); however, many
females disperse away from their natal area (Logan and Sweanor 2009). Female cougar dispersal
probably occurs in a density dependent fashion, such that female dispersal rates are higher when
local populations are abundant relative to available habitat and prey (Logan and Sweanor 2009).
When resources are scarce because of high cougar density, the advantages conferred on females
that stay close to related females may decline, leading some young females to seek habitats away
from kin but with less competition (Logan and Sweanor 2009). Although males typically disperse
further than females, both sexes are capable of extremely wide ranging dispersal events. Straight
line dispersal distances as far as 1,067 km and 357 km have been recorded for males and females,
respectively (Thompson and Jenks 2005, Stoner et al. 2008). Cougars are known to disperse through
a variety of landscapes, many of which contain poor quality habitats that would be avoided by
cougars under other circumstances (e.g., dispersal across prairies, through areas with heavy human
populations, and over major freeways (Sweanor et al. 2000, Thompson and Jenks 2005, Stoner et al.
2008).
Good dispersal abilities mean that cougar populations are well connected at broad regional
scales. Genetic evidence indicates that cougars in North America may exist as mega-populations,
with little differentiation across vast areas (Anderson et al. 2004, Biek et al. 2006). This indicates
that immigration and emigration over broad geographic regions may be especially important factors
in cougar population dynamics. Areas with low mortality rates and cougar densities close to carrying
capacity are likely to generate emigrants (sources), whereas areas with high mortality and cougar
densities below carrying capacity are likely to attract immigrants (sinks). These source-sink dynamics
can create stability in local cougar populations, even where local survival and reproductive rates
18
suggest that a closed population should either be increasing (stability achieved through emigration;
Cooley et al. 2009) or declining (stability achieved through immigration; Robinson et al. 2008, Cooley
et al. 2009).
Therefore, to achieve cougar population reduction, increased mortality may need to occur at
very large spatial scales (e.g. Stoner et al. 2006); otherwise immigration may offset high rates of
local mortality (Robinson et al. 2008). In cases where cougar populations have been reduced
experimentally through translocation or hunting, immigration from nearby source populations plays
an important role in recovery and stability (Lindzey et al. 1992, Logan and Sweanor 2001, Anderson
and Lindzey 2005, Stoner et al. 2006, Robinson and DeSimone 2011). However, immigration may not
replenish female cougars as quickly as males. Several studies show that local recruitment of females
is essential for population growth and recovery (Lindzey et al. 1992, Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Logan
and Sweanor 2001, Anderson and Lindzey 2005). Even where populations remain numerically stable,
shifts to younger overall age structure is likely in sink populations (Anderson and Lindzey 2005,
Robinson et al. 2008, Robinson and DeSimone 2011).
2.1.3 Cougar-prey relationships

Like all felids, cougars are obligatory carnivores and must kill other animals to survive. Prey
availability is a critical component of cougar home range placement, habitat selection, and
population size. By killing other animals, cougars can affect dynamics of prey populations. When
cougars prey on livestock or humans, they create conflict with people. Hence, understanding cougar
predation is central to understanding all aspects of cougar biology, ecology and management.
2.1.3.1 Hunting behavior and food habits

Cougars hunt on the ground (not from trees) and rarely sit and wait for prey (Knopff 2010).
Instead, cougars are stalking predators that move through the landscape using acute hearing and
excellent vision to search for prey; once potential prey is encountered cougars use stealth to
approach it until they are close enough to launch an attack (Seidensticker et al. 1973, Murphy and
Ruth 2009, Knopff 2010). Cougars grasp prey with their powerful forearms and retractable claws
and deliver a killing bite, generally on the throat immediately below the jaw. Smaller animals are
sometimes killed by a bite to the back of the head or neck.
After making a kill, cougars drag their prey to a cache site. Animal carcasses are typically cached
in dense cover, often under the low boughs of a coniferous tree. Cougars generally pluck or shear
hair from their prey before consuming meat. After finishing a meal the cougar will bury the carcass
with available debris including dirt, grass, sticks, leaves, and snow. Cougars typically remain in the
immediate vicinity of the kill until they have consumed all edible material (including bones of young
ungulates or small prey), which can take days or weeks for larger prey (Anderson and Lindzey 2003,
19
Knopff et al. 2009). Ungulate stomach contents (rumen) are not consumed by cougars, and they will
often bury it separately from the carcass.
In many places, cougars are most active and do most of their hunting at dusk, dawn, and
overnight (Beier et al. 1995, Sweanor et al. 2008). However, in west-central Alberta, cougars were
active and killed prey throughout the day, with peaks in the late afternoon and evening (Knopff
2010). When hunting, cougars tend to select habitats that offer sufficient cover for stalking. Cover
can be either shrubs and trees or terrain broken by boulders and small cliffs. Edge habitats between
forests and open areas are especially preferred, possibly because these habitats offer high prey
density with sufficient stalking cover (Laundre and Loxterman 2007).
Cougars can subsist on a wide variety of prey (Iriarte et al. 1990), but in North America deer are
almost always the primary prey of cougars, although elk also make up a substantial portion of
cougar diet in some places (Hornocker 1970, Ackerman et al. 1986, Murphy 1998, Anderson and
Lindzey 2003, Laundre 2008). Prey preferred by cougars is predicted to be about the size of a deer
or small elk based on energetic constraints models (Carbone et al. 1999). Where predation by
cougars has been studied in Alberta, deer always made up the largest component of cougar diet at
the population level (Ross and Jalkotzy 1996, Knopff et al. 2010a, Bacon et al. 2011, J. Banfield
unpublished data). In Sheep River, mule deer were the primary prey of the cougar population (Ross
and Jalkotzy 1996), whereas in Clearwater County white-tailed deer dominated (Knopff et al.
2010a). In the Cypress Hills deer made up most of the biomass consumed by cougars, but mule deer
and white-tailed deer were not distinguished (Bacon et al. 2011).
Although cougar populations in Alberta subsist primarily by killing deer, a wide variety of prey is
incorporated into cougar diets. In west central Alberta, cougars killed and fed on a variety of wild
prey including white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, feral
horses, other cougars, wolves, coyotes, red foxes, lynx, black bears, marten, beavers, porcupines,
snowshoe hares, red squirrels, hoary marmots, grouse, ducks, Canada geese, and ravens (Knopff et
al. 2010a). Moreover, although cougars kill primarily deer at the population level, prey composition
also varies by age-sex class. Adult females consume mostly deer, adult males tend to focus on larger
prey such as moose, elk, or feral horses, and sub-adult cougars kill more non-ungulate prey such as
beavers or porcupines (Ross and Jalkotzy 1996, Knopff et al. 2010a). Similar dietary segregation by
sex for cougars where males focus on large prey and females on smaller prey is also found in other
parts of North America (Murphy 1998, Anderson and Lindzey 2003, White et al. 2011).
In addition to hunting for live prey, cougars also will scavenge. Scavenging behaviour by cougars
has been reported from several studies, including those conducted in Alberta. Studies of cougar
food habits in the Clearwater County found that cougars, like most large carnivores, are inclined to
scavenge when the opportunity arises (Knopff et al. 2010b). Knopff et al. (2010b) found that
scavenging was a common foraging strategy employed by most cougars in the population; that
20
scavenging increased during winter when carrion availability was higher; that some cougars spent a
substantial portion of their foraging time consuming carrion during winter; and that healthy adult
cougars with demonstrated killing ability incorporated scavenging into their foraging strategy. In the
Cypress Hills, Bacon and Boyce (2010) documented a case of at least six different cougars scavenging
on the carcass of a large male elk in late winter. As noted above, killing large ungulates can be
dangerous for cougars, and it is therefore not surprising that cougars would take advantage of
opportunities to scavenge.
2.1.3.2 Kill rates

The effect cougars have on a population of their prey depends in part on kill rate, or the
frequency with which cougars kill prey. There has been substantial variation in kill rate estimates for
cougars in the literature, resulting in disagreement about how often cougars kill prey and the effects
cougars have on ungulate populations. For example, adult females without kittens have been
reported killing as few as 15 and as many as 53 ungulates per year (Anderson and Lindzey 2003,
Laundre 2005). Small sample sizes for predation sequences monitored in the field and indirect
methods for estimating cougar kill rates such as energetic models make it challenging to determine
which estimates are most reliable. More recently, GPS telemetry techniques have made it easier to
monitor large numbers of cougars over long durations, increasing the reliability of cougar kill rate
estimation (Anderson and Lindzey 2003, Knopff et al. 2009). Knopff et al. (2010a) applied these
techniques and estimated cougar kill rates in west-central Alberta from 85 season and demographic
specific kill rates calculated over monitoring periods averaging 107 days and yielding 1,326
predation events. On average, cougars monitored in that study killed 42 ungulates per year, but this
was highly variable among individuals and depended on a number of factors, especially cougar age,
sex and reproductive status. Season also had an important influence on kill rates, highlighting the
importance of year-round monitoring to calculate annual kill rates.
Although biomass of prey killed did not vary significantly by season, cougars killed 1.5 times as
many ungulates during summer when they focused predation on smaller and more vulnerable
juvenile prey. Cougar age-sex and reproductive class had a strong influence on cougar predation
patterns and females with kittens greater than 6 months old killed most frequently, averaging 1.5
ungulates per week during summer and 1.1 ungulates per week during winter (Knopff et al. 2010a).
Mature adult males killed less frequently than adult females at 0.7 ungulates per week during
summer and 0.6 ungulates per week during winter, but this was primarily because of the much large
size of prey killed; males killed more moose, elk and feral horses and annual biomass killed by adult
males was higher than any other age-sex class (Knopff et al. 2010a). Sub-adults killed ungulates
least often with kill rates as low as 0.3 ungulates per week during winter for sub-adult females
(Knopff et al. 2010a).
21
Higher kill rates identified in the Alberta study indicate a greater potential for cougars to affect
prey than has been reported in some previous studies (e.g., Laundre 2005). Data from west-central
Alberta also reinforce the importance of considering season and cougar population structure when
investigating cougar-ungulate dynamics (Knopff et al. 2010a). These findings may also have
application for using cougar harvest to manage cougar predation on ungulates. In particular, Knopff
et al. (2010a) suggest that if younger cougar populations and reduced fecundity are maintained
through sport hunting, as occurred in Utah and Washington (Stoner et al. 2006, Robinson et al.
2008, Cooley et al. 2009), effects of cougars on ungulate prey may decline even if cougar population
density is stable because sub-adults kill fewer prey than adults and females without kittens kill less
often that females with kittens. However, Knopff et al. (2010a, pg 1146) also point out that:
Managers should be cautious when applying cougar harvest to enhance ungulate
populationsbecause the benefit to ungulates will be situation dependent, population-level
predator control may not always produce the desired outcome for ungulates, and side-effects are
possible, such as increased conflict with humans when average cougar age is reduced.
2.1.3.3 Prey selection

In addition to kill rate, the effects cougars have on population of prey will depend on how many
animals they kill from that population and which animals they kill. Cougars are selective predators,
rarely killing prey in proportion to its availability (Murphy and Ruth 2009). In single prey systems,
prey selection simply comes down to the type of individuals killed within the prey population. But
cougars in North America, including those in Alberta, generally have more than one ungulate prey
species available to them. In such systems, cougar prey selection takes two forms, 1) which species
is selected and 2) which individuals from the population of that species are selected.
Species selection may depend on a variety of factors. In general, cougar selection for a given
prey type tends to increase with the relative abundance of that prey type in the home range (Knopff
2010). However, prey abundance alone does not explain much of the variation in prey selection
(Knopff 2010). The most important drivers of prey selection by cougars appear to be cougar age,
sex, size, and for females the number of kittens and size of kittens (Ross and Jalkotzy 1996, Murphy
1998, Pierce 2000b, Knopff 2010). In west-central Alberta, younger cougars and females tended to
select smaller prey (deer or sheep), but mature cougars, especially adult males, tended to consume
more large prey, occasionally selecting strongly for those prey types (Knopff 2010). Sub-adult
cougars tend to target small and midsized prey, including non-ungulate prey (Murphy 1998, Knopff
et al. 2010a).
Cougar population structure therefore plays a defining role in the number of each prey type
killed in multi-prey systems. Just as cougar harvest may be used to alter population level kill rates,
different cougar harvest strategies may change the type of prey taken by a cougar population. For
22
example, reducing the proportion of mature males in a cougar population may benefit larger
ungulates such as moose and elk in multi-prey systems, but may result in increased predation
pressure on smaller ungulates like deer and bighorn sheep (Knopff et al. 2010a, White et al. 2011).
Within a prey population, the most vulnerable individuals (e.g., the young, sick, and old) tend to
be selected by cougars. Some researchers have hypothesized that cougars kill prey as encountered,
resulting in a higher potential to affect prey populations because prey killed will have higher average
reproductive potential than occurs when predation is selective (e.g., Wilmers et al. 2003). However,
empirical data consistently indicate selection of vulnerable prey by cougars. For example, cougar
predation on large ungulate species such as elk and moose tends to focus on animals less than one
year old, likely because large adults of these species are more difficult for cougars to kill and impose
greater risk (Hornocker 1970, Turner et al. 1992, Ross and Jalkotzy 1996, Murphy 1998, Husseman et
al. 2003; Knopff et al. 2010a). Even when cougar predation focuses on deer, young animals are often
selected (Pierce et al. 2000b, Knopff et al. 2010a).
Additional evidence for cougars targeting vulnerable prey comes from west-central Alberta,
where cougars shift their predation patterns seasonally to take advantage of the most vulnerable
ungulate classes available. Cougars killed female ungulates more often in early spring when they are
in the late stages of pregnancy, male ungulates more often just before and during the rut when they
are least wary, and focused predation heavily on juvenile ungulates in spring when they are
vulnerable due to small size and inexperience (Knopff et al. 2010a). Although body condition of prey
may not drive selection by cougars in some cases (Pierce et al. 2000b, Husseman et al. 2003),
cougars disproportionately killed deer infected by chronic wasting disease in one Colorado study
(Krumm et al. 2010). A general pattern of selecting vulnerable prey is consistent with a strategy to
minimize risks associated with predation by targeting less risky prey (Ross et al. 1995, Logan and
Sweanor 2001).
Individual cougars may also specialize on a particular prey species (Knopff and Boyce 2007).
Ross et al. (1997) found that one female cougar in the Sheep River study focused predation on
bighorn sheep, killing nine per cent of the bighorn population and 26 per cent of the lambs in a
single winter. Declines in bighorn populations at Ram Mountain have also been attributed to
predation by specialist cougars (Festa-Bianchet et al. 2006). Knopff (2010) conducted a detailed
study of individual specialization by 37 cougars in west-central Alberta and found that most cougars
specialized, focusing on a single prey type for which they selected strongly. Most cougars in westcentral Alberta specialized on deer, but others focused on elk, bighorn sheep, moose, and feral
horses.
Cougar predation on bighorns at Ram Mountain ceased abruptly in 2003 and Festa-Bianchet et
al. (2006) suggested that the reason for this was the death or emigration of an individual specialist.
During 2005-2008, Knopff (2010) monitored nine cougars with ranges overlapping the Ram
23
Mountain bighorn sheep population. Of the 313 prey killed by those cougars only one was a bighorn
sheep. The bighorn population at Ram Mountain was recovering despite a cougar density of
between 2.71 and 3.49 per 100 km2 in the vicinity, highlighting the potential importance of
specialization by individual cougars for cougar-prey relationships (Knopff 2010).
2.1.3.5 Predation on livestock

Livestock and pets are occasionally killed by cougars, but generally make up a very small
proportion of cougar diet. Some of the most comprehensive studies of cougar predatory behaviour
in North America have been conducted in Alberta, and much of the work has taken place in parts of
Alberta where cougars overlap with agricultural and ranching communities. During the Sheep River
study, two dogs were found killed by collared cougars out of 368 kill sites investigated (Alberta
Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1992, Ross and Jalkotzy 1996). In west-central Alberta, including
ranching communities around Caroline and Rocky Mountain House and recreational communities
around Canmore and Banff, livestock and pets made up less than one per cent of the 1,500
predation events visited by field crews (Knopff et al. 2010a). Similarly, in the Cypress Hills, domestic
animals accounted for only 0.4 per cent of 266 predation events (Bacon et al. 2011), despite a high
density population of cougars living adjacent to and overlapping with ranching communities. Finally,
in the Pincher Creek and Beaver Mines area where substantial overlap occurs between cougars and
livestock, only one domestic cat was identified from 159 predation events (J. Banfield, University of
Alberta; unpublished data).
2.2 Cougar-Human Conflict

2.2.1 Public views on cougars
Public perception of cougars is complex. Historically, pervasive anti-predator sentiment in North
America resulted in bounties and poisoning programs that contributed to the extirpation of cougars
from much of the eastern portion of their range (Kellert et al. 1996, Anderson et al. 2009). In recent
times, public views of cougars in North America are become increasingly positive. Cougars are
valued as a big game species (Treves 2009), a wilderness icon (Gill 2009), and for their ecological
role as top predators (Logan and Sweanor 2001, Ripple and Beschta 2006, Knopff 2011).
Although cougars are increasingly viewed positively, substantial variation in public opinion
remains. Factors affecting public attitudes towards large carnivores in North America, including
cougars, have been associated with value for wildlife (Kellert et al. 1996, Mattson and Clark 2009),
socioeconomic status (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003, Mattson and Clark 2009), and social
associations (Williams et al. 2002, Naughton-Treves et al. 2003). Positive and conservationorientated views about carnivores increase with both urbanization and education, whereas hunters,
ranchers and older members of the community are generally less tolerant of cougars (Williams et al.
24
2002, Manfredo et al. 2003, Naughton-Treves et al. 2003, Knopff 2011). Lower tolerance for cougars
tends to be associated with traditional views about cougars; for example, that cougars are a
competitor for game, a threat to livestock, or an economic resource (Mattson and Clark 2009,
Knopff 2011).
Surveys in both the western United States and Alberta show that people living in cougarinhabited regions typically have positive views about cougars (Manfredo et. al. 1998, Riley and
Decker 2002, Thornton 2007, Knopff 2011). Two separate surveys distributed in rural Alberta, one in
Clearwater County the other southwest of Calgary, found that the majority of survey participants
valued cougars highly (Thornton 2007, Knopff 2011). Respondents believed that cougars were
important for maintaining healthy ecosystems and wanted to see them persist on the landscape
(Knopff 2011). A willingness to coexist with cougars (i.e., tolerance) was strongly linked to the
amount of value respondents place on cougars (Knopff 2011).
Although people generally value cougars and want to conserve them, they also fear cougars and
the potential threat posed to pets, livestock and people (Riley 1998, Thornton 2007, Knopff 2011).
When respondents of the Clearwater County survey were asked for comments about cougars near
their homes, remarks about being terrified, afraid to leave the home, to let children out, were
not uncommon (Knopff 2011). Respondents to surveys in Alberta and Montana have reported a
greater fear of cougars than of automobile accidents (Riley 1998, Knopff 2011). The risk ascribed to
cougars greatly exceeds true risk. In Alberta, only one human fatality has been recorded as a result
of a cougar attack, whereas car accidents kill over 350 people annually (Alberta Transportation
2008). Fear of cougars means that people generally have a low tolerance for maintaining cougars
close to their homes. Consequently, support for cougar conservation is great as long as the animals
themselves and the threats they pose are distant (Manfredo et al. 1998, Riley and Decker 2002,
Knopff 2011).
Public perception has been an important driver of cougar management in the western United
States. Recently, increased complaints about cougars filed with management agencies have led
several states to actively attempt to reduce cougar populations through increased hunting in an
effort to lessen conflict (e.g., Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2006, Robinson 2008). On the
other hand, public ballots in Oregon and California (driven by the urban majority) have either made
it illegal to hunt cougars with hounds, or halted cougar hunting altogether (Mattson and Clark
2009).
2.2.2 Root causes of conflicts

Conflict between people and cougars occurs where the two species share the same landscape.
Since the 1960s, changing public opinion, refined cougar management practices, and increases in
ungulate populations have resulted in growing and expanding cougar populations in many parts of
25
North America, including Alberta (Anderson et al. 2009, Knopff 2010, Larue et al. 2012). This, in
combination with growing human populations and rural and exurban development, means that
people increasingly share landscapes with cougars, providing greater opportunity for conflict both
near rural residences and for people recreating in the backcountry (Torres et al. 1996, Logan and
Sweanor 2001, Baron 2004).
Conflicts arise from encounters between cougars and livestock, pets, or people. The probability
of an encounter and subsequent conflict increases if cougars are attracted to places that are
frequently used by people. Many domestic animals are similar to the natural prey of cougars, and
cougars may be attracted to these animals as prey. Cougars have been documented killing a wide
variety of domesticated animals including: goats, sheep, cattle, horses, dogs, cats, turkeys, pigs,
llamas, alpacas, and chickens (Cougar Management Guidelines 2005, Knopff 2010). Although
domestic animals make up a tiny fraction of cougar diet in Alberta (Knopff et al. 2010a, Bacon et al.
2011, J. Banfield, University of Alberta, unpublished data), they are an ongoing concern for people
who have lost or might lose their animals. Depredation events are more likely on properties
abutting cougar habitat (Torres et al. 1996) and occur more frequently at night when cougars use
habitat closer to rural properties (Knopff 2011). The likelihood of a depredation event can increase if
domestic animals are left to roam free outside, particularly at night.
A more serious type of conflict can arise from encounters between people and cougars. Cougar
attacks can be initiated by both humans and cougars. In instances when humans approach cougars,
it is highly likely that the cougar will either walk away or remain in place without demonstrating a
threatening response (e.g. vocalizations, confrontational stance, or deliberate approach). Cougars
that are most likely to demonstrate a threatening response when approached are mothers
protecting kittens, but cougars may also act defensively protecting themselves or a kill (Sweanor and
Logan 2009). Cougars do not typically see humans as prey, but when an encounter is instigated by
the cougar, it is likely that the cougar is willing to expand its prey image. Underweight and young,
inexperienced cougars appear to be more likely to attack people (Beier 1991, Mattson 2007).
Vulnerable people (e.g. solitary, small-bodied) are more at risk of being attacked by a cougar. While
Beier (1991) found that children under 16 years were more likely to be attacked than adults, in
recent years more adults have been killed than children, perhaps because adults are more often
alone (Torres 2005). In addition, rapid movements (e.g. running, skiing, biking, etc.) may elicit a
predatory response by a cougar (Beier 1991, Fitzhugh et al. 2003, Torres 2005).
The probability that an encounter between a cougar and a person will escalate to an attack is
low; although capable of killing humans, cougar rarely do so. There have been three to four attacks
per year on people in North America since the beginning of the 1990s (Mattson 2007) and very few
of these attacks are fatal. There have been 20 fatal cougar attacks between 1980 and 2011 (Beier
1991, Fitzhugh et. al. 2003, Sweanor and Logan 2009, Lewis 2012). As to be expected with increasing
26
cougar populations and more overlap between cougars and humans, however, the regularity of
cougar attacks has increased, with half of fatal attacks occurring in the past 20 years (Sweanor and
Logan 2009). As noted above, only one human fatality due to a cougar attack has been recorded in
Alberta.
2.2.3 Methods to reduce conflict and increase tolerance

Reducing human-cougar conflict will hinge on the success of reducing opportunities for cougars
and humans to interact. Because cougars and humans are increasingly occupying the same space,
conflict management will rely on a cougar-conscious use of the landscape. Outdoor recreationists
(hikers, trail runners, mountain bikers, cross-country skiers, etc.) should follow the following safety
guidelines (Torres 2005):
1. Travel in groups and ensure that children are kept within eyesight.
2. Make noise.
3. Children playing outdoors in cougar habitat should be closely supervised and play areas
should be located away from stalking habitat (forest edges, shrubs).
4. Keep pets under control, preferably on a leash.
5. Minimize activity at dusk and dawn.
Although minimizing activity at dusk and dawn may be advisable (Sweanor et al. 2008), cougars
are active at all times of the day (Knopff 2010). Data from west-central Alberta indicate that early
mornings in winter and the middle of the day in summer may present the lowest risk of
encountering a cougar (i.e., least activity by cougars), there is still a risk of encountering cougars and
cougars may be actively hunting, even in the middle of the day (Knopff 2010).
For people who live in places where cougars are also present, attractant management can be an
important conflict reduction tool. Primary attractants include both wild and domestic animals. The
following steps minimize the possibility of human-cougar conflict near rural residences:
1. Avoid attracting deer, elk or other potential prey of cougars to a residence (e.g., deliberate
feeding, saltlicks, landscaping with high quality forage plants).
2. Minimize places where cougars could potentially hide near the home (close off decks,
minimize dense shrub/tree cover)
3. Pets and hobby-farm animals should be kept in secure enclosures (i.e. indoors, covered
kennels or barns), especially overnight.
Additionally, people who live or recreate in cougar country should know how to act if they
encounter a cougar in order to reduce the likelihood that an encounter will escalate into an attack.
These steps include:
27
1. Do not run.
2. Reduce your appearance of vulnerability (e.g. hold a coat overhead; wave your arms;
maintain eye contact).
3. Throw sticks and rocks.
4. Carry bear spray and use it.
If the encounter escalates to an attack people should always fight back. There are several
instances of humans successfully fending off a cougar by fighting back (Lewis 2012).
Education is an important tool to help maintain an informed and proactive public and may help
reduce conflict and increase tolerance. This is especially true if education can increase the overall
value individuals have for cougars, provide an opportunity to dispel common myths about cougars,
or address inappropriate perceptions of risk. Informative signs at recreational facilities, pamphlets,
and community and school presentations about safely living and recreating in cougar habitat can be
useful for conflict-reduction (Sweanor and Logan 2009). Special education effort may be needed for
newer residents of rural Alberta who have moved from the city to rural residential properties and
may not know about the potential to encounter cougars.
Providing a variety of different education programs may increase opportunity to connect with a
broad range of people and better increase tolerance. Programs that provide the opportunity to be
directly exposed to animals and the chance to learn about their ecological importance can promote
positive wildlife values (van den Born et al. 2001, Louv 2008). For example, in Washington State, the
experiential educational program Project C.A.T. (cougars and teaching) provided opportunities for
students to have hands-on experience with cougars by accompanying researchers on cougar
captures and on visits to cougar kill sites (Griswold et al. 2008).
Following conflict events, media will often focus coverage on cougars, something that can
strengthen public fear of cougars and decrease tolerance (Mattson and Clark 2009). Thus, applying
proactive approaches to reducing conflict (as described above) are key way to increase tolerance. In
the event that conflict occurs however, swift and appropriate management action to deal with the
problem cougar may be essential to assuage public concerns (Cougar Management Guidelines
Working Group 2005). Potential management actions for problem cougars include aversive
conditioning, and translocating or killing individuals.
In cases where cougars are involved in a low risk conflict situation for the first time, aversive
conditioning such as chasing with dogs or using slingshots and cracker shells may be appropriate
(Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group 2005). However, the outcomes of aversive
conditioning on cougars have not been well studied and the efficacy of this approach remains
uncertain. Where public tolerance for cougars is low (e.g., close to urban settings; Knopff 2011)
people may be less accepting of aversive conditioning.
28
Translocating problem cougars is often the publics preferred response to conflict events such as
pet depredations and sightings (Manfredo et al. 1998, Thornton 2007). However, while translocation
may be an effective tool for sub-adult cougars without established home ranges (Ross and Jalkotzy
1995, Ruth et al. 1998), for most cougars it is ineffective. Adult cougars with long established home
ranges may try and return to their original home range (Ruth et al. 1998, Logan and Sweanor 2001),
and Ruth et al. (1998) recommend moving cougars a distance of greater than 480km in order to
preclude their return. In addition, translocated adult cougars have an increased likelihood of
mortality (Ruth et al. 1998, Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group 2005). If translocation is
attempted, the cougar should be moved to an area with ample prey and a moderate cougar density
to maximize likelihood of successful home range establishment.
For high risk conflict events (e.g. cougar displays overly familiar behaviour towards people on
multiple occasions or attacks a person) destroying the cougar is the most appropriate action (Cougar
Management Guidelines 2005). In other cases, such as sightings or livestock depredations
destroying the cougar may or may not be the best course of action. The primary benefit of such
removals may be to assure local people that the animal has been eliminated, especially in the case
of sightings.
If an individual cougar is involved in killing a domestic animal and is likely to re-offend, removal
may be advantageous. However, cougars do not always reoffend. For example, in a case of llama
depredation near Caroline, Alberta, the adult female cougar responsible was not translocated or
killed because she had two eight week old kittens with her. Instead, she was GPS collared and
closely monitored. She did not kill another domestic animal at any of the 78 predation events visited
by field crews over the following year, despite maintaining a home range overlapping many rural
residences and ranching operations (K. Knopff and A. Knopff, University of Alberta, unpublished
data). Moreover, where cougar population densities in surrounding areas can act as sources,
individuals that are removed are likely to be replaced rapidly through immigration (Robinson et al.
2008), and younger cougars that replace the individuals removed may be more likely to be involved
in conflicts (Lambert et al. 2006). For the same reason, heavy hunter harvest at small spatial scales
(e.g., less than 1,000km2) may not be an effective tool for curbing human-cougar conflict (Lambert
et al. 2006, Robinson et al. 2008).
2.3 Historic and Current Status in Alberta

2.3.1 Numbers and Distribution
Estimates of historic cougar distribution and population levels are based primarily on conjecture,
coupled with limited written records from early explorers. Prior to European settlement, the
distribution of cougars in Alberta likely included all areas along the foothills and mountains from the
29
49th parallel to Grande Prairie, and areas within the South Saskatchewan River drainage to the east
(Preble 1908, Young 1946). During the early 1900s, sightings were recorded in the Cypress Hills and
other locations east of the mountains and foothills (Soper 1964). In a publication on mammals of
Jasper National Park, Soper (1970) mentioned a northward extension of the cougars range in
Alberta during the first half of the 20th century. Based on the lack of mention cougars received in
several park reports, he felt that they may have been scarce or absent toward the north of the
national park before that time. Whether this was true toward the east as well is not known.
However, native ungulates, which constituted the primary prey populations, were greatly reduced
by European settlement and cultivation, market hunting, and severe winter weather at the turn of
the century (Cowan 1952, Dwyer 1969, Flook 1962, Stelfox 1964, Stelfox and Taber 1969).
Consequently, cougars were probably also scarce during this period. As ungulate numbers
rebounded during the first half of the 20th century (Cowan 1950, 1952; Dwyer 1969, Lloyd 1927;
Stelfox 1964), cougar numbers probably increased as well.
Between 1937, when a bounty was initiated for cougars on provincial lands, and 1964, when the
bounty was removed, records of bountied cougars indicate that the largest number of cougars
occurred in the mountains and foothills north of the Red Deer River. During this time period,
relatively few were reported from south of the Bow River. In contrast, by the 1980s the majority of
hunter-killed cougars were harvested south of the Bow River, with relatively few killed in the north.
Whether these mortality patterns reflect the actual relative abundance of cougars during these time
periods is unknown, however anecdotal reports from houndsmen did indicate that cougar numbers
were relatively low north of the Bow River in the 1980s (Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlife 1992).
In the early 1990s, cougars were estimated to occupy approximately 72,000 km2 of provincial
lands located primarily in the foothills and mountains of southwestern Alberta (Alberta Forestry
Lands and Wildlife 1992). At that time a provincial cougar population estimate was developed based
on an intensive radio telemetry project near Sheep River, combined with consultations with regional
wildlife biologists and houndsmen across cougar range. Cougar densities were estimated to be
highest south of the Bow River, declining rapidly to the north. The provincial population was
estimated at 685 cougars, including 640 outside of the national parks. While public sightings of
cougars have been reported from across the province, mortality locations provide a much more
robust data source with which to evaluate cougar distribution. By this measure, cougar distribution
has expanded to the north and east during the past two decades (Knopff et al. 2013). They are now
well established in the Cypress Hills (Bacon et al. 2010) and in the Peace Country near Grande Prairie
and Valleyview (Knopff et al. 2013). A radio telemetry based estimate of cougar density near
Nordegg suggests that cougar density is now approximately three times higher in that area than was
estimated in the early 1990s (Knopff 2010). Overall, it appears that the Alberta cougar population
30
has expanded in distribution and increased in size over the past two decades, likely due to
conservative harvest management and relatively abundant prey populations.
Although habitat-based methods to estimate cougar population size have been advocated
(Cougar Management Guidelines 2005), this approach is not feasible in Alberta where populations
are expanding, densities of deer in forested areas are poorly known, cougar habitat is primarily
contiguous, and management by humans may limit cougar density below carrying capacity.
Therefore, the current cougar population size was estimated using extrapolations of estimated
cougar density from historic and recent radio telemetry projects (Alberta Forestry Land and Wildlife
1992; Knopff 2010), coupled with expert opinion of researchers, regional wildlife biologists, and
houndsmen (Figure 2.1).
A total of 1,781 cougars were estimated to inhabit the 32 Cougar Management Areas (CMAs) in
the province, with an additional 170 in protected areas (National Parks, Provincial Parks, and
Wilderness Areas), and a conservative estimate of 100 on provincial lands outside of the CMAs. This
resulted in a total provincial population estimate of 2,051 cougars. This estimate is extremely crude
and confidence intervals cannot be calculated, particularly north of Highway 16 where no cougar
research has been conducted. Nonetheless, this estimate does reflect the weight of evidence
indicating an increasing population over the past two decades, as well as regional patterns in cougar
density as indicated by field staff and hunters.
31
Figure 2.1. Estimated density of cougars within cougar management areas in Alberta.
2.3.2 Hunting
2.3.2.1 Hunting regulations
Hunting regulations for cougars have varied through time, reflecting changes in both cougar
population levels as well as public attitudes towards large carnivores. Throughout much of the early
20th century, cougars were considered a pest species that predated on livestock and competed with
humans for wild game. Cougars were first recognized as a valuable big game animal in 1969, when
harvest restrictions were implemented in the form of a limited season length. Hunting regulations
32
continued to become more conservative until 1990, when a quota management system was
implemented (Ross et al. 1996). At that time, CMAs and corresponding quotas were established to
distribute cougar harvest pressure more evenly across cougar range. Increasing populations and
range expansion led to minor regulation adjustments throughout the 1990s and early 2000s.
When first established, each CMA had both a total quota and a female sub-quota. All humancaused cougar mortalities were applied towards the quota, and the season closed in each individual
CMA whenever the quota was reached. In cases where the number of human-caused mortalities
exceeded the quota in a CMA, the overharvest was applied to the next years quota. This system
created situations where some CMAs did not open for hunting at all in certain years, typically
because the quota filled with non-hunting mortalities. Beginning in 2004, separate male and female
quotas were established, non-hunting mortalities were no longer applied towards the quota, and
over-quota harvests were no longer applied to the next years quota. This created a more stable
season structure for hunters, who could be guaranteed that seasons would open in each CMA every
year. However, this also required a reduction in quotas to account for estimated non-hunting
mortality (Figure 2.2), and in some cases hunting quotas have also been reduced in response to high
non-hunting mortality (e.g. accidental trapping) the previous year.
In response to increasing cougar populations and clustered harvest distributions, CMAs 1, 7, 9,
and 11 were each split into two smaller CMAs in 1998 and 2000 in order better distribute the
harvest in these areas. WMUs 216, 334 and 336 were added to the CMA system in 2003 because
increased cougar populations in those units were capable of supporting a limited hunting season. In
2011, all CMA boundaries north of the Bow River were realigned, and six WMUs were added to
reflect population increases and range expansion of cougars. In many cases, cougar harvests were
being clustered in the more accessible portions of CMAs north of the Bow River, potentially resulting
in overharvest in some locations, and underutilization in other areas. The new 2011 CMA
boundaries were intended to achieve a more balanced spatial distribution of the harvest, as was
originally intended when the quota system was first established.
Beginning in 2011, a fall season (November 1-30) for resident hunters was established in all 100
to 500 series WMUs outside of the CMAs, as well as in WMU 410. This season was created in
response to increasing human-cougar conflicts in the Prairies, Parkland, and Boreal regions, as well
as increases in human-caused cougar mortalities that indicated populations had expanded (Knopff
et al. 2013). The use of dogs is prohibited in this season, and hunters may kill one cougar of either
sex. No harvest quotas apply, but spotted kittens and females accompanied by spotted kittens are
protected.
33
Table 2.2. History of management and hunting regulation changes for cougars in Alberta.
Year
Management Change
1937
Bounty instated
1964
Bounty lifted
1969
First cougar season declared. Season ran from September March; dogs permitted only in
January-March.
1971
Cougar designated as a big game animal. Bag limit set at one cougar/year. Fall (non dog) season
corresponded to ungulate seasons. Winter season (dogs allowed) limited to December and
January.
1978
Winter season limited to January in WMUs 300-312.
1981
Winter season reduced to month of January
1982
Kittens with spotted fur and females accompanied by kittens with spotted for protected.
1985
Fall hunting season abolished
1990
CMAs and quota system established. Total quota/female quota system. Winter season lengthened
to 3 months in December-February.
1998
CMA 1 split into 2 separate CMAs. NR/NRA outfitter allocations continue to be valid across the
original CMA.
2000
CMAs 7, 9, and 11 each split into 2 separate CMAs. NR/NRA outfitter allocations continue to be
valid across the original CMA.
2003
WMU 216, 334, and 336 opened for cougar hunting.
2004
Quotas changes from Total/Female to Male/Female. Non-hunting mortalities no longer counted

towards the quota.
2005
Cougars must be registered within one business day following the kill instead of 2 days.
2006
WMUs 353, 354, 355, 356, and 509 opened for cougar hunting.
2007
Landowners allowed to hunt cougars on their own land at any time of the year without the use of
dogs. No licence required
2011
Landowners allowed to keep cougars hunted on their own land. CMA boundaries re-aligned.
WMU 216 removed from CMA system; WMUs 351, 511, 512, 515, 516, and 517 added to CMA
system. Fall hunting season (dogs prohibited) reinstated in some areas including most WMUs
outside of the CMAs. Cost of resident cougar licence reduced to $20.31
2012
Hunting seasons in CMAs may be closed prior to the quota being reached if ESRD feels that
conditions are such that the quota will be filled within the next business day.
34
2.3.2.2 Licence sales
Sales of cougar licences have generally increased since they were first introduced in 1971.
Licence sales in 1971 and 1972 underestimated the actual number of cougar hunters, as cougars
could also be hunted under the authority of an elk licence in those years. Licence sales fluctuated
between 100 to 180 licences from 1976-1996, but then increased rapidly over the next 10 years, to a
high of 367 in 2008. Licence sales remained relatively constant from 2007 to 2010, but then
increased to 744 in 2011 due to the addition of the fall season and a reduction in licence cost. The
number of licences sold to non-resident hunters has ranged from four to 29, comprising an average
of 7.8 per cent (range 3.2 per cent to 16.7 per cent) of total licences sold. Non-resident licence sales
have increased since 1998 when number of outfitter allocations was increased from 17 to 24, and
also due to increases in the number of non-residents hunting under the authority of a hunter host.
2.3.2.3 Season Length

Since the quota system was established in 1990, the winter hunting season has occurred during
the months of December-February. Seasons closed in each CMA when the quota filled, creating
substantial variation in average season length across CMAs. From 2004-2010, seasons in the 15
CMAs in place during those years averaged 72 days (range 35 to 90 days) in length, but within
certain CMAs, closed in as few as two days in some years. This slightly longer than the average
season length of 60 days from 1999 to 2003, in part because some CMAs did not open for hunting at
all during those years because quotas were filled with non-hunting mortalities before the hunting
season opened.
2.3.2.4 Harvest
From 1973 to 1989, the average annual harvest by hunters was 32 cougars (range 21 to 47).
Harvest levels doubled during 1990 to 1999, with an average of 69 cougars killed each year (range
40 to 111). From 2000 to 2011, harvest again increased, to an average of 106 cougars per year
(range 79 to 127). Increases in annual harvest of cougars by hunters are likely due to a combination
of increased interest by hunters and corresponding licence sales, increasing cougar populations,
increased levels of motorized access, and an increase in hunting quotas through time. However,
since the implementation of the quota management system in 1990, the size of the provincial
cougar harvest has been constrained by quotas within each CMA.
Residents are responsible for the majority of the cougar harvest every year, but the proportion
harvested by non-residents has increased through time. From 1973 to 1989, non-residents and nonresident aliens harvested an average of 4 cougars/year, representing 7.5 per cent of the harvest.
The number of cougar harvested by non-residents increased to an average of 10.5 per year from
1990 to 1999, representing 15.3 per cent of the harvest during this time period. From 2000 to 2011,
35
harvests by non-residents increased to an average of 20.7 per year, representing 18.1 per cent of
the harvest. This increase is due in part to an increase in the number of outfitter allocations from 17
to 24 in 1998. Hosted non-resident hunters have also killed an increasing proportion of harvested
cougars over the past several years, with less than one person per year hunting under this authority
in the 1990s increasing to an average of five per year in the 2000s.
Hunter success averaged 34 per cent from 2000 to 2010, with non-residents exhibiting a higher
success rate (69 per cent) than residents (30 per cent). Overall hunter success has declined slightly
since the 1990s, when 40 per cent of hunters who purchased a cougar licence harvested a cougar.
This change is likely due to rapid increases in licence sales that have outpaced increases in quotas.
Hunter success rates declined substantially in 2011 to 17 per cent, due to a significant increase in
cougar licence sales that followed a reduction in licence cost and creation of the fall season.
800
Cougar Harvest
700
Licence Sales
Total Quota
600
Number
500
400
300
200
100
0
1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010
Figure 2.2. Cougar hunting licence sales, total hunting harvest, and hunting quotas in Alberta from 19712011.
Harvest Distribution
The distribution of the annual cougar harvest has undergone a substantial shift since the
implementation of the quota system in 1990. Prior to the quota system, harvest distribution was
dictated by relative densities of cougars in WMUs open to cougar hunting, the distribution of cougar
hunting guides, snow conditions, and vehicular accessibility (Alberta Forestry Land and Wildlife
36
1992). Prior to 1990, the majority of the cougar harvest came from WMUs south of the Bow River,
due to a higher number of cougar hunting guides in this region, high levels of motorized access, and
relatively abundant cougar populations. This pattern has changed dramatically over the past two
decades. The proportion of the harvest that has occurred north of the Bow River has increased
steadily from 32 per cent in 1990, to a high of 80 per cent during the 2006 hunting season (Knopff et
al. 2013). This change is due to increases in hunting quotas in the north in response to increasing
populations, coupled with increased numbers of cougar hunting guides in northern areas.
In addition to regional changes in the distribution of cougar harvests, spatial patterning has
occurred within CMAs, particularly in those north of the Bow River. Prior to 2011, larger CMAs north
of the Bow River resulted in clustering of harvests within specific WMUs. At nearly 22,000 km2 in
size, for example, CMA 10 was comprised of 12 WMUs, yet from 2007 to 2010, 13 of 24 (54 per
cent) harvested cougars in this CMA were killed in WMU 438 near Hinton. During this same time
period, six WMUs in CMA 10 saw no harvest at all. Similarly, in old CMA 8, 79 of 101 (78 per cent)
cougars that were harvested from 2007 to 2010 were killed in three WMUs near Rocky Mountain
House, despite the fact that they comprised only 42 per cent of the CMA. This clustering of harvest
was likely influenced by cougar population density, amount of motorized access, snow conditions,
and distribution of hunters and hunting guides. Low hunter interest or success in some areas may
also be related to current regulations that prohibit carrying firearms on an OHV before noon. This
restriction would make it difficult for hunters to effectively search for cougar tracks using an OHV.
The requirement to register cougars within one business day may also prevent some hunters from
taking advantage of hunting opportunities in very remote areas.
In WMUs comprised primarily of private land, harvest rates have been low and hunters have not
taken full advantage of hunting opportunities. For example, since WMU 216 was opened for cougar
hunting in 2003, until 2010, a total of only two cougars were harvested. During the same time
period, five cougars (including three females) were killed in this WMU by other methods, and 112
cougars were killed within the four other WMUs that comprised CMA 7. In this case, it appears that
hunters preferred to pursue cougars in WMUs where public land was more abundant. Similarly, in
WMU 300, which since 1998 has been organized as its own CMA, the quota has been filled only
three times in the past ten years despite a high estimated cougar density.
Spatial heterogeneity in harvest patterns within CMAs may create situations where cougars are
locally overharvested in some areas and under-harvested in others. Realignment of CMA boundaries
in 2011 was intended to redistribute harvest pressure more evenly across the landscape, and allow
localized management in response to human-cougar conflicts or to help meet ungulate population
objectives. Harvest rates will continue to be low in areas with low levels of motorized access, due to
the difficulty of searching for tracks and transporting hunting dogs in these areas.
37
Figure 2.3. Number of cougar mortalities in wildlife management units in Alberta from 1971-1990 and 1991-2010.
Also displayed are the outlines of core cougar range (solid line) and low-density cougar range (dashed line) for the
distribution of cougars in 1998. Reproduced with permission from Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2013,
DOI:10.1002/wsb.369.
Sex Ratio of the Harvest

The sex ratio of the annual cougar harvest varied substantially during the 1970s and 1980s,
becoming much more consistent with the creation of the quota system in 1990. The percentage of
females in the harvest declined substantially during this time, comprising 47 per cent of the harvest
from 1971-1989 and only 31 per cent from 1990 to 2011.
The sex ratio of cougar harvests can be influenced by many factors, including season length,
snow conditions, hunter preference for larger cougars, pressure from hunting guides, structure of
the quota system, cougar population density, and competition between hunters. The percentage of
38
female cougars in the harvest is often been viewed as a measure of harvest sustainability, because
harvest of adult females has a greater impact on the population than males. Male cougars should be
the most vulnerable to harvest because they have large home ranges and travel at higher rates than
female cougars, thereby crossing more roads and trails where tracks can be detected by hunters
(Barnhurst 1986). Coupled with hunter selectivity for larger cougars and reluctance by some hunters
to kill females in order to protect breeding capacity, this would tend to result in a harvest biased
towards males. However, where hunting seasons are short or when snow conditions are poor, there
may be fewer opportunities to tree cougars. In this case, many first time hunters would likely shoot
a smaller cougar, which is more likely to be a female.
1.0
Proportion Females in Harvest
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010
Figure 2.4. Proportion of female cougars in the harvest in Alberta from 1971-2011.
Prior to 2004, seasons in each CMA were closed when the female sub-quota (which was typically
set at approximately half the total quota) was reached, which may have caused some hunters and
guides to avoid killing females in order to extend the length of the season and maximize the number
of cougars that could be killed. Similarly, the change to a system of separate male and female
quotas in 2004 maintained a relatively low proportion of females in the harvest. In this case, hunters
and guides have chosen not to fill the female quota in some CMAs in order to retain the ability to
train their dogs for the entire three month season. In some remote CMAs, where the effort required
to locate cougar tracks is high and the risk of losing dogs may be elevated, hunters and guides
appear less willing to kill females, and female quotas in these areas often go unfilled.
39
2.3.3 Non Hunting Mortality
Human caused cougar mortalities other than hunting were a minor source of mortality in the
1970s, comprising two per cent of the total recorded mortality from 1971 to 1979. This increased to
ten per cent of total mortality in the 1980s, 22 per cent in the 1990s, and 34 per cent in the 2000s.
From 1999 (when detailed records of the specific causes of non-hunting mortalities were first
recorded) to 2011, accidental trapping was the most significant source of non-hunting mortality,
comprising 13 per cent of total mortalities recorded during this time period. Anecdotal reports
indicate that the majority of cougars killed by accidental trappers are killed in snares set for wolves
or coyotes, or in large conibears traps set for lynx or bobcat. Notably, the majority of accidental
trapping mortalities occur on public land in the green zone, where recreational hunting opportunity
is a priority for cougar management. Number of accidentally trapped cougars peaked in 2007, and
was high enough, when added to other causes, to result in population sinks (Knopff et al. 2010).
Unlike hunting, the majority of cougars captured by trappers are female (63 per cent), which may
exacerbate effects on the population. In the Nordegg area, hunting quotas were reduced in
response to high trapping mortality in 2007. The department has worked with the Alberta Trappers
Association to educate trappers on methods to reduce accidental trapping of cougars since 2009.
Since landowner take was first authorized in 2007, this cause has been a significant source at 11
per cent of total recorded mortalities. It is anticipated that the 2011 regulation change allowing
landowners to keep cougars that they kill on their own land may increase reporting rates, leading to
an increase in recorded mortality by landowners. All landowner take occurs on private land, where
hound hunting is less effective and options for managing cougars are more limited. Other sources of
mortality, such as self defence, problem wildlife, and road kill, each typically comprise less than five
per cent of total mortalities each year.
40
300
Number of Mortalities
250
Self Defense
Road Kill
Landowner
Hunting
Problem Wildlife
Other
Accidental Trapping
200
150
100
50
0
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
Figure 2.5. Number of cougar mortalities due to self defence, road kill, landowner hunting, licenced hunting,
problem wildlife, accidental trapping, and other causes in Alberta from 1971-2011.
2.3.4 Cougar-Prey Relationships

Cougars are known to prey on all ungulate species in Alberta except bison and caribou. For the
most part, cougar predation is not considered to be a primary limiting factor for ungulates in
Alberta. Cougars are sympatric with several other large carnivore species (wolves, black bears, and
coyotes) throughout most of their range, and with grizzly bears in many areas. Although cougars
exhibit high kill rates (Knopff et al. 2010) and can exist at higher densities than wolves (Knopff 2010,
Webb 2009), they have rarely been implicated in ungulate population declines. Cougar predation is
focused primarily on smaller ungulate species such as deer, which have high reproductive rates, and
on juveniles of larger ungulate species, which contribute less to population viability than do adults
(Knopff et al. 2010).
Nonetheless, cougar predation may limit or even cause declines in some ungulate herds,
particularly when populations are small or isolated. Cougar predation resulted in reduced survival
rates of bighorn sheep on Ram Mountain near Nordegg, and at Sheep River southwest of Calgary,
leading to population declines (Festa Bianchet et al. 2006). In these cases, cougar predation was not
related to sheep density, and appeared to be caused by a small number of individual cougars that
specialized on sheep. Population modeling indicated that stochastic predation events by specialist
cougars could result in extirpation of some bighorn sheep herds, particularly those with less than
41
125 sheep. Similar instances of individual cougar specialization have been documented on moose
and feral horses in Alberta, although in these cases the magnitude of the effect on the prey
population was unknown (Ross and Jalkotzy 1996, Knopff 2010).
While cougar predation on caribou has not been documented in Alberta, no intensive research
of cougar food habits has occurred where the distribution of caribou overlapped home ranges of
monitored cougars. However, caribou and cougars may overlap substantially at the northern
terminus of cougar range in Alberta, and cougars are expanding northwards (Knopff et al. 2013). In
British Columbia, cougars are recognized as an important predator of caribou, and have likely
caused population declines in some areas (Kinley and Apps 2001, Wilson 2009). While continued
expansion of cougars into caribou range may increase the likelihood of negative population
consequences for caribou, it remains uncertain whether cougars can persist at high densities across
the northern tier of the province (Webb et al. 2012).
2.3.5 Cougar-Human Conflicts

Beginning in 1999, cougar sightings and cougar-human conflicts were recorded by the
Department in the ENFOR database. Occurrences were recorded as one of several categories,
including sightings, human conflict, property damage, livestock kill, and nuisance. These data have
several limitations, including a lack of clear standardization for assigning occurrences to categories,
and duplication of occurrences when several phone calls are received about the same cougar.
Further, occurrences are more frequent in areas of higher human habitation and are not necessarily
indicative of high cougar densities. The majority of occurrences are unverified, and an unknown
percentage is likely related to species misidentification by the complainant. While inconsistencies in
categorization prevent detailed analyses of trends in conflict type, the overall number of reported
sightings and conflicts has increased through time (Figure 2.6). Relatively low numbers of reported
occurrences in 1999 and 2000 may have been related to officer unfamiliarity with the ENFOR system
during its first years of operation. Since 2001, the number of reporting sightings and conflicts has
averaged 647 per year, requiring an average of 1528 hours per year of response time.
42
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Figure 2.6. Number of cougar occurrences recorded in the ENFOR database in Alberta from 1999-2011.
Spatial locations where cougar sightings and conflicts occur are typically recorded at the level of
the WMU, although a legal land description or GPS coordinates are sometimes included. Cougar
occurrences have been recorded throughout the foothills and parkland regions and in many WMUs
in the prairies, mountains, and boreal regions. High numbers of occurrences were recorded in
WMUs surrounding major population centres that have high human populations, particularly
Calgary, Edmonton, and Grande Prairie. Despite the presence of healthy cougar populations in many
mountain WMUs, number of reported occurrences is low due to a relatively small human presence.
43
Figure 2.7. Number of cougar occurrences recorded in wildlife management

units in Alberta from 1999-2011.
Response to cougar-human conflicts is currently directed by the Cougar Response Guide, which
outlines the circumstances under which cougars of various age classes should be captured and
relocated and/or euthanized. In general, cougars may be captured and relocated in situations where
the investigating officer determines there is a potential public safety threat, or where a cougar has
attacked pets or livestock. Cougars that make unprovoked contact with humans are euthanized.
Since 2000, an average of eight cougars per year (range of three to 22) has been euthanized by the
44
department, and an average of three cougars per year (range of one to six) are captured and
relocated each year. Most relocations occur in response to a cougar that has wandered into a
populated area. Despite persistent public rumours to the contrary, all relocated cougars are
released in remote areas within established cougar range. The department does not transplant
cougars to establish new populations, or release them on private land near residences to control
deer numbers. In some cases, Damage Control Licences may be issued by Fish and Wildlife Officers,
authorizing private citizens to remove cougars using means specified in the licence, which can
including trapping or the use of dogs.
2.3.6 Data Collection Guidelines

The Wildlife Regulation has required registration of all cougar mortalities since 1971. At the time
of registration, the cause and date of mortality, location (WMU and/or Legal Land Description), sex,
and estimated age are recorded. A copy of the registration form is retained at the District Office
where the form is completed, and copies are sent to Wildlife Management Branch (WMB)
headquarters, and to the District Office where the cougar died. In cases where the cougar was
legally harvested by a hunter or landowner, they also retain a copy of the registration form.
Registration data are entered by the WMB into the Compulsory Registration Database. When
present, a premolar tooth is removed from each cougar and sent to Mattsons Lab in Milltown,
Montana, for aging.
During the winter hunting season, a copy of the registration form from hunter-killed cougars is
immediately faxed to WMB headquarters in order to allow close monitoring of harvest quotas.
WMB staff enter this information in an excel file, which is used to track the number of male and
female cougars killed in each CMA.
Due to the difficulty and expense of doing so, the department has not attempted to collect
systematic data on cougar population trends, densities, or predatory behaviour. However, several
university-led cougar research projects have been conducted in the province, typically with
departmental involvement or input. These projects have greatly enhanced the departments ability
to effectively manage cougars.
2.3.7 Economic Aspects

Unfortunately, no information exists on the economic contribution of cougars to the province of
Alberta. Cougar hunting licence sales generate approximately $15,000 annually, and cougar hunting
likely generates a significant amount of economic activity through the purchases of fuel, equipment,
food, dog supplies, etc. Many cougar hunters hire guides to assist in their hunt, who typically charge
$3,000 to $8,000 per hunter, depending on the hunt duration. Unlike most other big-game in
45
Alberta, guides are commonly hired by resident hunters that wish to pursue cougars, which create
additional economic activity.
2.4 Summary and Management Challenges

A conservative harvest regime and abundant prey populations have allowed Albertas cougar
population to expand in distribution and increase in numbers over the past 20 years. The current
provincial estimate is 2,050 cougars, distributed across most of the southern two-thirds of the
province. Cougars are now common throughout much of the white zone, and appear very capable of
exploiting habitat near human residences and other human activity. Cougar-human conflicts and
safety concerns by the public have increased, and although the majority of rural Albertans appear to
value cougars, most do not want cougars to be present near their residences.
Cougar hunting regulations have been slowly adjusted over time to reflect an increasing and
expanding population. While most cougar harvest is still conducted under a strict quota system,
quotas have increased in many areas, new WMUs have been added to the CMA system, a fall, nonhound season has been established outside of the CMAs, and the cost of a cougar licence has been
reduced. The department has also increased the flexibility for landowners to manage cougars on
their own land by allowing year-round hunting without the use of dogs.
In the future, important cougar management challenges will include balancing cougar
conservation and management for trophy hunting with low public tolerance for cougars on private
land.
46
3.0 Management Plan

3.1 Policy Framework
Wildlife resources in Alberta are administered according to policies outlines in The Fish and
Wildlife Policy for Alberta (Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Division 1982).
These policies, summarized in the following statements, provide general direction for establishing
goals and objectives for cougar management in the province.
3.1.1 Resource Protection

1)The primary consideration of the Government is to ensure that wildlife populations are
protected from severe decline and that viable populations are maintained
3.1.2 Resource Allocation

2)(a) The wildlife resource, as a Crown resource, will be utilized in a manner which contributes
the most benefit to the citizens of Alberta.
2)(e) Wildlife will be allocated through a defined process whereby specific resources are
deployed to specific uses in order to achieve stated public benefits.
17) Wildlife must be allocated among different primary users in response to government
policy. Until such time as supply and demand can be better rationalized, the following
interim allocation guidelines will prevail in order of priority:
(b) Resident recreational use of game will have precedence over non-resident use. Wildlife
stocks not fully allocated or utilized to higher priority uses may be allocated commercially
to non-residents.
18) The allocation of wildlife stocks to the different primary users does not imply that other
uses cannot occur within areas where such uses are entitled.
3.1.3 Recreational and Educational Use

8) A variety of wildlife recreational opportunities, in addition to hunting, will be available for
the benefit and enjoyment of Albertans.
9) The Government will promote the use of wildlife for the educational benefit of
Albertans.
21) A variety of hunting opportunities will be available for the recreational benefit and
enjoyment of Albertans
47
3.1.4 Commercial Use
22) The Division will encourage an environment that promotes the growth of the tourist
industry
22)(b)(ii) The Division will pursue this policy through:
(e) Managing wildlife to produce marketable use opportunities.
3.1.5 Protection of Private Property

4) The Government, through the Division, will assist in preventing or controlling wildlife from
damaging property and endangering human life.
5) Responsibility for damage in any form caused by wildlife will be shared in relationship to
what people can reasonably do for themselves and to the amount of any additional
damage beyond that which would normally be expected to occur in an area.
48
3.2 Management Goals and Objectives

Goal: To ensure that the cougar population is protected from any significant decline and viable,
self-sustaining populations are maintained.
Objectives:
a) Maintain a viable population of at least 1,500 cougars on provincial lands in Alberta.
b) Allow a maximum human-caused mortality rate of not more than 20 per cent of the
provincial cougar population.
3.2.2 Resource Allocation

Goal: To maximize the benefits to Albertans through optimum allocation of the cougar resource
amongst recreational, commercial, and other users.
Objectives:
a) Provide Albertans and visitors to Alberta the opportunity to view, photograph and otherwise
enjoy the cougar resource.
b) Provide the opportunity for recreational hunter to annually harvest a portion of the
provincial cougar population.
3.2.3 Recreational Use

Goal: To maximize the recreational benefits and enjoyment to Albertans from the cougar
resource through the provision of a variety of recreational opportunities.
Objectives:
a) Promote recreational non-consumptive uses such as observation and photography of
cougars.
b) Provide opportunities for recreational hunting of cougar and a sustainable annual provincial
harvest.
3.2.4 Commercial Use

Goal: To provide a commercial benefit to Albertans from the cougar resource
Objectives:
49
a) Provide opportunities for Albertans to benefit from the tourism value of cougars.
b) Allow the opportunity for non-resident hunters to hunt cougars.

Goal: To minimize property damage and other hazards to humans caused by cougars.
Objectives:
a) Ensure that cougar predation on livestock and pets are reduced as much as possible by
planned land management and agricultural development and by preventative livestock
management.
b) Reduce economic loss as a result of cougar predation by continuing the Wildlife Predator
Compensation Program.
c) Reduce the occurrence of chronic cougar problems on private lands by capture and
translocation or euthanasia of offending individuals.
3.2.6 Science and Education

Goal: To promote and encourage scientific and educational activity to enhance knowledge of
cougars.
Objectives:
a) Continue management-oriented research of Albertas cougar populations and cougar-prey
interactions.
b) Educate Albertans about cougars and their value in Albertas natural environment.
c) Promote the cougar as an integral part of Albertas ecological integrity.
50
3.3 Management Strategies

Survival of the cougar in Alberta depends on successful management of prey populations,
especially deer, elk, moose and bighorn sheep. Fundamental to the management of ungulates are
habitat inventory, protection and enhancement. These strategies are detailed in the respective
species management plans. Given their broad habitat requirements, habitat strategies for cougar
are not recommended at this time.
3.3.2 Data Collection

The department will continue to require registration of all known cougar mortalities. The cause
of death, sex, date of kill, location of kill, and approximate age of the cougar will be recorded in
addition to information on the hunter, where applicable. Government staff will also continue to
collect a premolar tooth from each registered cougar, regardless of cause of death.
In the future, the department will pursue several changes to the mortality registration process in
order to improve the efficiency of data collection and entry. The current registration form will be
modified to include additional categories for cause of mortality (accidental trapping, landowner,
problem wildlife, etc.), and a tick box where staff can indicate when a tooth sample has been
removed. The Approximate Age section will be modified so that staff can select from Juvenile,
Subadult, or Adult. The location of kill section will be expanded to allow finer resolution than
township/range. The department will also move towards electronic submission of registration
forms, such that electronic forms are filled out and submitted to the database by field staff at the
time of registration. This will reduce data entry errors, allow enforcement of data collection
standards, ensure that data are entered into the database in a timely fashion, and reduce the
burden of recording and distributing hard-copy registration forms. Creation of a distinct electronic
registration form for cougars would reduce the complexity of the form and allow collection of
species-specific information.
Cougars will be added to the annual Game Harvest Survey in order to gather additional
information on hunter effort, success rates, use of hounds, and participation in the fall vs. winter
season. These data will be important as the department considers potential expansion of non-hound
hunting seasons and the use of draws to manage cougar hunting pressure in popular areas.
The department will also improve the current system that is used for recording cougar sighting
and conflicts. The ENFOR database was not designed for human-wildlife conflict data, has few
enforced data standards, and cannot be used to easily distinguish sightings from conflicts. In
51
contrast, the Fish and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) has been specifically
designed to record information on wildlife sightings and conflicts, and includes data fields that allow
distinction of conflict levels. Over time, the department will begin recording cougar conflict data in
FWMIS. Pursuing this option will require the development of simple, easy to use electronic forms
that load information directly into the database.
3.3.3 Resource Allocation and Recreational Use

Cougar hunting, which provides a quality recreational experience, will be continued in Alberta.
The current one month fall hunting season (1 November 30 November) and three month winter
hunting season (1 December last day in February) will be maintained. The prohibition against the
use of dogs during the fall season will continue. The fall season may be extended to coincide with
the opening of other big game seasons or to include an archery season if it is determined doing so
will not result in an increase in harvest that would exceed objectives. The current restriction that
prohibits cougar hunters from carrying firearms on OHVs before noon in some WMUs will be lifted
during time periods and in locations where the only open big game season is for cougar.
3.3.3.1 Cougar Management Areas

Primary cougar range outside of national and provincial parks in Alberta will be divided into
Cougar Management Areas (CMAs) for the purposes of allocating hunting pressure and harvest. In
most cases CMAs will be larger than a single Wildlife Management Unit (WMU), reflecting the larger
spatial scale of cougar population dynamics. CMAs will be established by combining WMUs that are
similar in habitat type, levels of access, suspected cougar density, and amount of private land. CMA
boundaries will be adjusted as required in response to changes in cougar distribution and density,
and levels of cougar-human conflict.
3.3.3.2 Zone Management

The province will be divided into four zones for the purposes of cougar management (Utah
Cougar Advisory Group 2009, Wyoming Game and Fish 2006). These zones include 1) Protected; 2)
Source; 3) Stable; 4) and Sink (Table 3.1). Protected zones, which include Provincial Parks, National
Parks, and Wilderness Areas, will be managed with non-consumptive use as the priority and will not
have hunting seasons.
In source zones, primary management objectives will be 1) to maintain a population buffer from
potential population declines in stable zones and 2) to provide high-quality hunting opportunities
for large, trophy sized male cougars. In most cases, source zones will be established in remote areas
with low levels of motorized access, where the potential for conflicts with humans is low and there
is limited interest in hunting cougars. In these areas, the opportunity for a limited harvest of female
52
cougars will be maintained to allow management flexibility to remove cougars that may be
specializing on sensitive ungulates.
Stable zones will be managed to provide abundant hunting opportunities while ensuring stable
population trajectories. The primary objective will be to maximize harvest for adult male cougars,
which are highly valued by hunters. Stable zones will be established in areas with moderate to high
levels of motorized access, and where there is limited opportunity for cougar-human conflict.
Sink zones will be managed to reduce or maintain cougar populations below carrying capacity,
and to minimize property damage and risks to public safety. Sink zones will be established in areas
with abundant year-round human residences and livestock. In some cases, sink zones will also be
created where cougar predation is viewed as a significant mortality factor for vulnerable ungulate
herds, such as caribou or isolated populations of bighorn sheep.
Table 3.1. Land use types, management objectives, and management targets for cougar management zones in Alberta.
Zone
Provincial Parks
National Parks
Wilderness Areas
Source
Low levels of
motorized access
Little or no year-round
human residences
Stable
Moderate or high
levels of motorized
access
Few or no year-round
human residences
Buffer from population

declines
Natural benchmark for
research
Non-consumptive use
and enjoyment
Buffer from population
declines
Source of male cougars
for stable zones
Limited harvest of
trophy sized adult male
cougars
Ability to remove
cougars of either sex
that are specializing on
important ungulate
herds
Non-consumptive use
and enjoyment
Stable population
High quality hunting
opportunities
Maximize harvest for
adult male cougars
Sink
Abundant year-round
human residences
Areas with ungulate
Reduce populations or
maintain below preybased carrying capacity
No human caused
cougar mortality
Average age of
harvested male cougars
5 years.
< 20% of harvest
comprised of adult
females
Average age of
harvested male cougars
3.5 years.
< 25% of harvest
comprised of adult
females
In areas with
established breeding
populations, > 25% of
53
herds vulnerable to
cougar predation
Minimize property
damage and public
safety risks
harvest comprised of
adult females
Harvest may be
primarily comprised of
males in areas where
breeding populations
have not been
established
54
Figure 3.1. Cougar management areas and wildlife management unit

boundaries in Alberta.
3.3.3.3 Quota Seasons

Where the use of dogs to hunt cougars is allowed, cougar populations will be protected from
overharvest during the winter season with a quota harvest system. Currently, a separate quota for
55
male and female cougars is in place for each CMA. In the future, this will be changed to a total
(either-sex) quota in order to provide equal opportunities for hunters to pursue cougars without the
use of dogs, and to reduce misidentification of cougar sex and subsequent wastage. A total quota
system will also allow more meaningful interpretation of the age and sex structure of the harvest
when adjusting quotas (Anderson and Lindzey 2005). A female sub-quota will not be established, as
strong selectivity by hunters for male cougars should result in a relatively low female harvest in
most areas.
Resident hunters and non-residents hunting with a hunter-host will continue to be required to
register harvested cougars within one business day following the kill. In the future, the department
may consider relaxing this requirement in source zones, where it can be difficult for hunters to
travel to a district office within the allotted time period.
When the pre-determined harvest quota is reached, hunting will close in the corresponding
CMA. The department may also close the season in individual CMAs when conditions indicate that
an over-quota harvest is likely. This will be employed in cases where the quotas has nearly been
filled, snow conditions are good, and an upcoming weekend or holiday period would prevent timely
reporting of harvested cougars. Hunters will be required to phone a 1-800 number or check the
departments website each day to determine which areas are open for hunting. The current three
month winter season (December 1 to February 28) will be maintained. In the future, the winter
season may be expanded to include the month of March in order to give hunters additional
opportunity to pursue cougars in areas where harvest quotas have not been filled.
Quotas will be established and adjusted using a system of adaptive management (Walters 1986)
based on recent and current research on cougar population density, regular consultation with key
stakeholders, and analysis of the age and sex distribution of harvested cougars. CMAs will be
grouped into Data Analysis Units (DAUs) to facilitate meaningful analyses of cougar age data and
allow adequate sample sizes for decision making (Table 3.2). A three year average of harvested
cougar age will be calculated for each DAU, and quotas will be adjusted according to following
guidelines.
Adaptive Management for Source Zone:
Target: <20% adult females in harvest and male age 5 years
Increase Quota
1. <17% adult females in harvest and male age 5 years, quota by 10%
2. <15% adult females in harvest and male age 5 years, quota by 20%
Reduce Quota
56
1. >20% adult females in harvest or male age <4.75 years, quota by 10%
Adaptive Management for Stable Zone:
Target: <25% adult females in harvest and male age 3.5 years
Increase Quota
1. <22% adult females in harvest and male age 3.5 years, quota by 10%
2. <20% adult females in harvest and male age 3.5 years, quota by 20%
Reduce Quota
Adaptive Management for Sink Zone:
Target: >25% adult females in harvest
Increase Quota
1. <25% adult females in harvest, quota by 20%
2. <20% adult females in harvest, quota by 40%
Reduce Quota
Quotas reduced when CMA is transitioned to Stable
Quotas will generally be established for a three year period in order to allow time for
management changes to take effect, and to provide consistency in regulations for hunters.
Deviations from the above guidelines, including more frequent changes to quotas, may occur in
cases of significant non-hunting mortality or where scientific or strong anecdotal information
suggests that management objectives are not being met. In addition, quotas may be temporarily
increased for the hunting season following a severe winter that causes ungulate population declines
(Webb et al. 2012). Both management targets and guidelines may be adjusted in the future as new
scientific information becomes available on the use of indices to manage cougar populations.
57
Table 3.2. Cougar Management Areas, Zones, and Data Analysis Units in Alberta.
CMA
WMUs
Zone
Data Analysis Unit
300
Sink
1 (along with 108 and 110)
302, 400
Stable
303, 306, 308, 402
Stable
304, 305
Stable
404, 406
Stable
408, 410
Stable
310, 312
Stable
314, 316
Stable
318, 320
Stable
10
322, 332
Sink
11
324, 330
Stable
12
326, 328,429
Stable
13
412, 414, 416, 417, 418
Source
14
420, 422
Source
15
426, 428, 430
Source
16
432, 434, 436, 437
Source
17
438, 439
Stable
18
440, 442, 444
Source
19
352, 353, 441
Stable
10
20
334, 336
Sink
21
337, 338, 348
Stable
11
22
339, 340, 342
Stable
23
344, 346
Stable
11
58
24
347, 349
Stable
12
25
350, 351
Stable
12
26
354
Sink
13
27
505, 507
Stable
10
28
356
Sink
13
29
505, 507
Sink
30
509, 510
Stable
14
31
511, 516
Stable
14
32
512, 515, 517
Stable
14
3.3.3.4 Non Hound Seasons

In some areas and at specific times of the year, the use of hounds to pursue cougars is
impractical or may result in conflicts with other hunters or landowners. In WMUs dominated by
private land, hunters have been reluctant to take advantage of winter hound seasons, and harvest
has been low. In certain mountainous areas with low levels of motorized access, harvest during
winter seasons has been low or nonexistent. While the use of hounds for hunting cougars in these
remote areas does not create conflicts, it may be possible to create additional recreational
opportunities without exceeding harvest goals by allowing cougar hunting at other times of the
year.
Where hounds are not allowed, hunter success is usually extremely low. Therefore, non-hound
seasons will be established to overlap with fall ungulate seasons, when the number of hunters on
the landscape is highest. This should increase participation in the cougar hunt, resulting in higher
harvest rates and maximizing recreational opportunity.
Non-hound seasons will be maintained in the Prairies, Parkland, and some Boreal Regions,
where most WMUs are comprised primarily of private land, or hunter interest during the winter
season has been low. The current one-month season (November 1-30) will be maintained until 2014
in order to evaluate hunter interest and hunter success rates. In the future, this season may be
lengthened if doing so is required in order to meet harvest goals in sink zones. Fall, non-hound
seasons may be extended to foothills and mountainous regions if doing so will not elevate harvest
to a level where it exceeds management objectives.
59
3.3.3.5 Alternative Season Structures
The major disadvantage of the quota harvest system is that in popular hunting areas, seasons
can close very rapidly. For example, in 2011, the season was closed for both sexes within five days in
two different CMAs. This creates a low-quality hunting experience, as hunters must rush to harvest
a cougar before the season is closed. In these cases, hunters may not take the time to be as
selective, increasing the number of females and young males in the harvest. The likelihood of overquota harvests is also increased in these areas, due to the large number of hunters allowed under
the general licence. In these popular hunting areas, a limited-entry draw season is an alternative
approach to manage harvests. This season structure would allow hunters the full duration of the
winter season to pursue cougars and also reduce competition, improving the quality of the hunting
experience and allowing increased selectivity. A hybrid approach, which includes a draw for the first
part of the season and a quota system for the latter portion of the season, has also been used
successfully in some jurisdictions. The department will undergo consultation with stakeholders to
determine if one of these approaches would be supported by the public.
3.3.4 Managing Commercial Use

Non-resident cougar hunting, through the use of allocations held by outfitters, will continue in
Alberta. Currently, some allocations are valid in two CMAs, and the hunter can kill one cougar of
either sex at any time in the three month winter season. In the future, the department may consider
limiting each allocation to one CMA in order to ensure a desirable harvest distribution.
Currently, non-residents hunting under the authority of an outfitter-guide allocation must
register their cougar within one business day following the kill. Since cougars harvested under an
allocation do not count towards a quota, there is little justification for requiring this short timeline.
Therefore, the department will consider altering this requirement to extend the time period within
which these cougars must be registered.
The 1992 Cougar Management Plan indicated that non-resident hunting was to be limited to 10
per cent of the annual licensed removal. At that time, 17 NR/NRA cougar allocations existed, and
the plan suggested that this number would be reduced when resident demand increased. However,
the number of allocations was increased to 24 in 1998. Concurrently, resident licence sales
increased from 112 in 1992 to 328 in 2010, indicating a substantial increase in demand from
resident hunters. Over the last five years, harvest by non-residents and non-resident aliens
(including hosted hunters) has represented 19 per cent of the total licenced harvest. Because
resident demand for cougar hunting is high and increasing, cougar allocations will be included on
the five year allocation review, with the long-term goal of reducing non-resident take to 10 per cent
of licensed harvest within each DAU. It is anticipated that harvest by residents will increase through
60
time with expanding and increasing cougar populations, so reductions in outfitter allocations may
not be necessary.
Currently, the majority of non-resident cougar allocations are distributed south of Highway 16,
where demand by resident hunters is highest. In some CMAs, non-resident harvest comprises
substantially more than 20 per cent of the harvest. As part of the five year allocation review process,
the current spatial distribution of non-resident allocations should be reviewed and adjusted to
ensure non-resident harvest does not exceed 20 per cent of the total harvest within any individual
CMA. Exceptions to this guideline may be allowed in CMAs where resident demand is low, as
evidence by quotas that regularly go unfilled.
3.3.5 Managing Cougar-Prey Relationships

Cougar management will include provisions to allow reduction of localized populations to
protect declining or threatened ungulate populations. Where cougar predation is known or
suspected to be a primary or significant contributor to declines in a threatened or isolated ungulate
population (e.g. woodland caribou, bighorn sheep, and mountain goats), the department will
consider establishing a sink zone in the corresponding CMA, utilizing a combination of fall and
winter seasons to achieve harvest goals. Government-initiated culls will not be initiated for cougars,
except in extreme cases in order to prevent the extirpation of an ungulate population, and where
hunting alone is not effective. Where possible, management of this nature will be focused on
individual cougars that are known predators of the affected ungulate species, typically determined
through radio collars placed either on cougars, or on a sample of ungulates.
3.3.6 Managing Non-consumptive Use

Cougars are rarely observed in the wild because of their naturally low densities and elusive
behaviour. It is unlikely that a program can be developed which could effectively enhance nonconsumptive cougar viewing opportunities. Pursuit seasons, which allow cougars to be chased and
treed (but not killed) outside of the regular hunting season, create additional recreational
opportunities and allow houndsmen to train their dogs. Currently, five of 26 (19 per cent)
jurisdictions in North America have separate pursuit seasons. Disadvantages of pursuit seasons
include increased administrative and enforcement responsibilities and additional harassment and
possible mortality of cougars. Young kittens may be captured and killed by hounds, ungulate kills
made by cougars may be abandoned, and in the case of cougars residing in accessible areas,
continued harassment may induce physiological trauma (Roberson 1984, Harlow et al. 1992).
Pursuit seasons are not recommended for Alberta at the present time, but should non-consumptive
demand for cougar viewing increase, special regional seasons could be considered. Currently,
pursuit for non-hunting enjoyment and dog training can occur during the open hunting season.
61
3.3.7 Managing Non Hunting Mortality

Where possible, the department will endeavour to reduce levels of non-hunting cougar
mortality, and to increase the proportion of cougar mortalities that occur through hunting. This will
help to ensure that mortality rates are aligned with cougar management objectives, and prevent the
unnecessary wastage of the cougar resource. Efforts to reduce non-hunting mortality will be
focused on educational initiatives directed towards trappers, landowners, and hunters.
Beginning in 2009, the department has worked with the Alberta Trappers Association (ATA) to
educate trappers on approaches to avoid accidental cougar captures. Outreach methods have
included articles in the Alberta Trapper magazine, presentations at the ATA annual convention, and
information in the annual Alberta Guide to Trapping Regulations. The department will continue to
work with the Alberta Trappers Association to educate trappers on approaches to avoiding cougars.
Improving data collection on the type of trapping set (e.g. snare, conibears, etc.) that cougars are
caught in would help to target messaging towards trappers that are using traps most likely to catch
cougars. The current policy of not allowing trappers to retain cougars that are captured accidentally
will be maintained. Allowing trappers to keep cougars would create an incentive, likely causing some
individuals to target cougars intentionally and increasing the number captured. This could require
reductions in hunting quotas in some areas. Because trapping is non-selective, this would also lead
to an unnecessary increase in the mortality of dependent kittens and females with dependent
kittens, which would not be supported by the general public.
While harvest by landowners has also been significant these mortalities may be somewhat
compensatory, as these cougars might be killed as problem wildlife or through illegal means if
landowners were not legally authorized to do so. In addition, because this take occurs exclusively on
private land, it may target cougars that are less vulnerable to hunting due to the difficulty of using
hounds in those areas. Therefore, landowner harvest of cougars is unlikely to threaten populations
in source and stable zones, and this provision may be important in maintaining and increasing public
support for cougars on private land. The department will continue to monitor cougar harvest by
landowners, as well as to educate residents in cougar range on methods to avoid conflicts.
Cougars killed as problem wildlife by agency staff and through Damage Control Licences average
less than 10 per year, and are targeted at individual cougars that have depredated on pets or
livestock, or have caused public safety concerns. These removals are not considered a threat to
overall population viability, and are necessary to balance public tolerance with cougar conservation.
62
The number of cougars killed in self defence has increased in recent years. The majority of self
defence kills occur during the fall big game hunting seasons, often by hunters that are using game
calls to attract elk or moose. While the total number has remained small (reaching a high of nine in
2011), the department will continue to educate hunters on methods to avoid cougar encounters,
and how to respond when cougars are seen. This information will be included in educational
strategies that are part of the BearSmart program.

The department will continue to respond to reports of cougars that have killed or threatened
pets, livestock, or public safety. The Cougar Response Guide will be used to determine the
appropriate response in the event that capture of the offending animal is necessary.
Landowners will continue to be allowed to hunt cougars on their own land without a licence on a
year-round basis. The use of dogs will not be allowed under this authority. This will give rural
residents flexibility to immediately remove cougars that are threatening pets or livestock or creating
public safety concerns. Fish and Wildlife Officers may also issue Damage Control Licences to
authorize landowners to utilize dogs or traps to remove cougars that have damaged property or are
a threat to public safety.
3.3.9 Managing Scientific and Educational Use

The department will encourage, and where possible support, research on cougars in Alberta. In
particular, information on cougar density and population dynamics north of Highway 16 is
nonexistent. Research on cougars in this area should be a priority given recent range expansion and
population increases in this area, potential interactions with caribou, and possible impacts of severe
winters on cougar populations (Webb et al. 2012). Potential impacts of cougars on bighorn sheep
populations also merits further research, especially in light of previous work that has indicated
cougars can cause substantial declines in localized populations. In most cases, research will be
conducted as collaborative efforts with universities, other government departments (e.g. Alberta
Parks), and other research organizations.
The department will continue efforts to educate specific stakeholders, as well as the general
public, about cougars and their management. A variety of media, including print brochures, the
departmental website, and social media (such as YouTube) will be utilized. Specific initiatives
directed towards trappers, hunters, and landowners will be enhanced where possible. Wherever
possible, educational programs should proceed as collaborative efforts with other government
departments (e.g. Alberta Parks) and organizations (e.g. Alberta Hunter Education Instructors
Association, Alberta Trappers Association).
63
4.0 Management Plan Application

4.1 Provincial Summary
The primary challenges for management of cougars in Alberta are to:
Balance cougar conservation and hunting opportunity with low public tolerance for the species
in rural landscapes.
Ensure that cougar hunting is managed to provide maximum recreational opportunity, while
also allowing the harvest of large, trophy males.
Educate Albertans about cougar biology in order to promote public tolerance and reduce
cougar-human conflicts.
Manage cougar predation on sensitive ungulate herds.
Encourage research on cougar population dynamics and food habits in northern Alberta.
4.2 Regional Perspectives

4.2.1 Mountains and Foothills
Cougar populations in the mountains and foothills are robust, and likely exist at or near preybased carrying capacity. Cougars inhabiting public land in these regions pose little risk of conflict
with people and public opinion surveys have indicated that most Albertans believe that cougars
should be allowed to exist in these areas. Climate change, coupled with human-caused landscape
modification, will likely ensure an abundant ungulate prey base for cougars. National and Provincial
Parks and Wilderness Areas that are closed to cougar hunting, as well as regions with low levels of
motorized access, will provide a buffer from potential population declines as well as a reservoir of
male cougars for hunting. Recreational and commercial hunting will be a priority for cougar
management in these regions, and using the age and sex-structure of cougar harvests to adjust
hunting will ensure that this activity is sustainable. Non-hunting mortality, particularly accidental
trapping, will continue to be a management concern. Educational programs directed at the trapping
community can help trappers avoid catching cougars, reducing this unnecessary source of mortality.
4.2.2 Prairies and Parkland

Cougars are now well established in portions of the Prairies and Parkland regions, including the
Cypress Hills where they exist at some of the highest densities ever recorded. Abundant deer
populations, coupled with adequate cover in many WMUs, means that these areas can likely
64
support significant cougar populations. Cougar management in these regions will hinge upon public
tolerance and the willingness of rural residents to coexist. Recent opinion surveys indicate that
support for cougar conservation in these areas is low. Therefore, cougar management strategies will
include educational initiatives to give people the knowledge to avoid and respond to cougar-human
conflict, in hopes of raising tolerance over the long-term. In the meantime, rural residents will be
given flexibility to remove cougars that they believe are a threat to pets, livestock, or public safety.
Damage Control Licences may be issued to allow the use of dogs or traps to remove specific
offending animals, and government staff will continue to capture and euthanize or kill cougars that
have been involved in serious conflicts. Fall hunting seasons will continue in these regions in order
to provide recreational opportunity and to manage the population below carrying capacity.
4.2.3 Boreal Forest

While cougars have recently expanded their range in the boreal forest, their long-term prospects
in this part of the province are uncertain. The occurrence of severe winters that cause significant
deer mortality may cause stochastic cougar population trends, leading to high levels of human
conflict in some years. On the other hand, recent modelling efforts indicate that deer populations
will continue to increase in the boreal forest and even with severe winters will be able to survive
near agricultural areas. If this is the case, cougars will be a permanent fixture in the boreal forest,
and may continue to expand their range. This will create new hunting opportunities, but will also
lead to increased conflicts with people, and could contribute to elevated predation levels on
woodland caribou. Research on cougar population dynamics and food habits in the boreal region
should be encouraged, and will be important to inform management strategies in the future.
65
5.0 Literature Cited

Ackerman, B. B., F. G. Lindzey, and T. P. Hemker. 1986. Predictive energetics model for cougars. Pages 333
352 in S. D. Miller and D. D. Everett, editors. Cats of the world biology, conservation, and
management. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., USA.
Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Division. 1982. Fish and Wildlife Policy for Alberta.
Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Edmonton.
Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. 1992. Management plan for cougars in Alberta. Province of Alberta
Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 5. Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. Edmonton,
Alberta.
Alberta Transportation. 2008. Alberta traffic collision statistics 2008.
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType47/Production/2008AR.pdf
Anderson A. E. 1983. A critical review of literature on puma (Felis concolor). Special Report No. 54. Denver:
Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Anderson, C. R., and F. G. Lindzey. 2003. Estimating cougar predation rates from GPS location clusters.
Journal of Wildlife Management 67:307316.
Anderson, C. R., and F. G. Lindzey. 2005. Experimental evaluation of population trend and harvest
composition in a Wyoming cougar population. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:179188.
Anderson, C. R., F. G. Lindzey, and D. B. McDonald. 2004. Genetic structure of cougar populations across the
Wyoming Basin: metapopulaiton or megapopulation? Journal of Mammalogy 85:1207-1214.
Anderson, C. R., F. G. Lindzey, K. H. Knopff, M. G. Jalkotzy, and M.S . Boyce. 2009. Cougar management in
North America. Pages 41-54 in S. Negri and M. Hornocker, editors. Cougar: ecology and
management. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Arundel, T., D. Mattson, and J. Hart. 2007. Movements and habitat selection by mountain lions in the
Flagstaff Uplands. In Mountain lions of the Flagstaff Uplands, 2003-2006 progress report, Edited by
D.J. Mattson. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
Bacon M. M. 2010. The ecology of a re-established cougar (Puma concolor) population in southeastern
Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan. Thesis. University of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta.
Bacon, M. M., K. H. Knopff, and M. S. Boyce. 2009. Eastward movement of cougars in Canada: an update from
Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park. Wild Felid Monitor 2:19.
Bacon, M. M., G. M. Becic, M. T. Epp, and M. S. Boyce. 2011. Do GPS clusters really work? Carnivore diet
from scat analysis and GPS telemetry methods. Wildlife Society Bulletin 35:409-415.
Bacon, M. M. and M. S. Boyce. 2010. Scavenging of an elk, Cervus elaphus, carcass by multiple cougars, Puma
concolor, in southeastern Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist 124:242-245.
66
Barnhurst, D. 1986. Vulnerability of cougars to hunting. Masters thesis, Utah State University, Logan.
Baron, D. 2004. The beast in the garden a modern parable of man and nature. W. W. Norton and Company.
New York.
Beier, P. 1991. Cougar attacks on humans in the United States and Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:403412.
Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:228237.
Beier, P. 2009. A focal species for conservation planning. In: Cougar: ecology and conservation. Edited by M.
Hornocker and S. Negri. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois.
Beier, P., D. Choate, R. H. Barrett. 1995. Movement patterns of mountain lions during different behaviors.
Journal of Mammalogy 76:1056-1070.
Beier, P., and R. H. Barrett. 1993. The cougar in the Santa Ana Mountain Range, California. In Final Report,
Orange County Cooperative Mountain Lion Study. Department of Forestry and Resource
Management. University of California, Berkeley.
Biek, R., A. J. Drummond, and M. Poss. 2006. A virus reveals population structure and recent demographic
history of its carnivore host. Science 311:538541.
Boyce, M. S., A. R. E. Sinclair, and G. C. White. 1999. Seasonal compensation and harvesting. Oikos 87:419
426.
Carbone, C., G. M. Mace, S. C. Roberts, and D. W. Macdonald. 1999. Energetic constraints on the diet of
terrestrial carnivores. Nature 402:286-288.
Caughley, G., and J. Sinclair. 1994. Wildlife ecology and management. Blackwell Science, Malden,
Massachusetts.
Cooley, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, G. M. Koehler, H. S. Robinson, and B. T. Maletzke. 2009. Does hunting regulate
cougar populations? A test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis. Ecology 90:2913-2921.
Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group. 2005. Cougar management guidelines. WildFutures,
Bainbridge Island, Washington.
Cowan, I. M. 1952. The role of wildlife on forest land in western Canada. Forestry Chronicle 28:42-49.
Czetwertynski, ,S. M., M. S. Boyce, and F. K. Schmiegelow. 2007. Effects of hunting on demographic
parameters of American black bears. Ursus 18:118.
Dickson, B. G., and P. Beier. 2002. Home-range and habitat selection by adult cougars in southern California.
Journal of Wildlife Management, 66: 1235-1245.
Dwyer, M. V. 1969. Ecological characteristics and historical distribution of the family Cervidae in Alberta.
MSc thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
67
Fitzhugh, E. L., S. Schmid-Holmes, M. W. Kenyon and K. Etling. 2003. Lessening the impact of a puma attack
on a human. p. 89-103 In Proceedings of the seventh mountain lion workshop, Edited by S. A.
Becker, D.D. Bjornlie, F.G. Lindzey, and D.S. Moody. Lander: Wyoming Game and Fish Department.
Festa-Bianchet, M., T. Coulson, J. M. Gaillard, J. T. Hogg, and F. Pelletier. 2006. Stochastic predation events
and population persistence in bighorn sheep. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273:15371543.
Flook, D. R. 1962. Range relationships of some ungulates native to Banff and Jasper National parks. Paper
presented to a symposium on grazing, Aril 11-14, 1962. British Ecological Society, North Wales.
Gill, R. B. 2009. To save a mountain lion: evolving philosophy of nature and cougars. Pages 5-16 in S. Negri
and M. Hornocker, editors. Cougar: ecology and management. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
Illinois.
Grigione, M. M., P. Beier, R. A. Hopkins, D. Neal, W. D. Padley, C. M. Schonewald, and M. L. Johnson. 2002.
Ecological and allometric determinants of home-range size for mountain lions (Puma concolor).
Animal Conservation 5:317-324.
Griswold, T., S. Osbolt, S. Gronostalski, J. French, B. Wagsholm, K. White, G. Koehler, and B. Maletzke. 2009.
Project CAT (cougars and teaching).what the community has learned. Proceedings of the Ninth
Mountain Lion Workshop. Hemeker, T. P., F. G. Lindzey, and B. B. Ackerman. 1984. Population
characteristics and movement patterns of cougars in southern Utah. Journal of Wildlife
Management 48:12751284.
Holmes, B. R. and J. W. Laundr. 2006. Use of open, edge and forest areas by pumas Puma concolor in winter:
are pumas foraging optimally? Wildlife Biology, 12: 201-209.
Hornocker, M. G. 1970. An analysis of mountain lion predation upon mule deer and elk in the Idaho
primitive area. Wildlife Monographs 21.
Husseman, J. S., D. L. Murray, G. Power, C. Mack, C. R. Wenger, and H. Quigley. 2003. Assessing differential
prey selection patterns between two sympatric large carnivores. Oikos 101:591601.
Iriarte, J. A., W. L. Franklin, W. E. Johnson, and K. H. Redford. 1990. Biogeographic variation of food habits
and body size of American puma. Oecologia 85:185-190.
Kellert, S. R., M. Black, C. R. Rush, A. J. Bath. 1996. Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North
America. Conservation Biology, 10: 977-990.
Kertson, B. N., R. D. Spencer, J. M. Marzluff, J. Hepinstall-Cymerman, and C. E. Grue. 2011. Cougar space use
and movements in the wildland-urban landscape of western Washington. Ecological Applications
21:2866-2881.
Kinley, T. A. and C. D. Apps. 2001. Mortality patterns in a subpopulation of endangered mountain caribou.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 158-164.
Knopff, A. A. 2011. Conserving cougars in a rural landscape: habitat requirements and local tolerance in
west-central Alberta. MSc thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
68
Knopff, K. H., and M. S. Boyce. 2007. Prey specialization by individual cougar (Puma concolor) in multi-prey
systems. Pages 194210 in J. Rham, editor. Transactions of the Seventy-Second North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C., USA.
Knopff, K. H., A. A. Knopff, M. B. Warren, and M. S. Boyce. 2009. Evaluating global positioning system
telemetry techniques for estimating cougar predation parameters. Journal of Wildlife Management
73:586597.
Knopff, K. H. 2010. Cougar predation in a multi-prey system in west-central Alberta. PhD dissertation,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Knopff, K. H., A. A. Knopff, A. Kortello, and M. S. Boyce. 2010a. Cougar kill rate and prey composition in a
multiprey system. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1435-1447.
Knopff, K. H., A. A. Knopff, and M. S. Boyce. 2010b. Scavenging makes cougars susceptible to snaring at wolf
bait stations. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:644-653.
Knopff, K. H., N. F. Webb, and M. S. Boyce. 2013. Range expansion of cougars in Alberta during 1991-2010.
Wildlife Society Bulletin. DOI:10.1002/wsb.369.Krumm, C. E., M. M. Conner, N. T. Hobbs, D. O.
Hunter, and M. W. Miller. 2010. Mountain lions prey selectively on prion-infected mule deer.
Biology Letters 6:209-211.
Lambert, C. M. S., R. B. Wielgus, H. S. Robinson, D. D. Katnik, H. S. Cruickshank, R. Clark, and J. Almack. 2006.
Cougar population dynamics and viability in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Wildlife Management
70:246254.
Laing, S. P. 1988. Cougar habitat selection and spatial use patterns in southern Utah. Thesis, University of
Wyoming, Laramie.
Larue, M. A., C. K. Nielsen, M. Dowling, K. Miller, B. Wilson, H. Shaw, and C. J. Anderson, Jr. 2012. Cougars
are recolonizing the Midwest: analysis of cougar confirmations during 1990-2008. Journal of
Wildlife Management. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.396
Laundr, J. W. 2005. Puma energetics: a recalculation. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:723732.
Laundr, J. W. 2008. Summer predation rates on ungulate prey by a large keystone predator: how many
ungulates does a large predator kill? Journal of Zoology 275:341348.
Laundre, J.W., and L. Hernandez. 2003. Winter hunting habitat of pumas Puma concolor in northwestern
Utah and southwestern Idaho. Wildlife Biology 9:123-129.
Laundre, J.W., and L. Hernandez. 2008. The amount of time female pumas (Puma concolor) spend with their
kittens. Wildlife Biology 14:221-227.
Laundre, J. W., and J. Loxterman. 2007. Impact of edge habitat on summer home range size in female pumas.
American Midland Naturalist 15:221-229.
Lewis, L. 2012. List of confirmed attacks 2001-2010. http://www.cougarinfo.org (accessed March 25, 2012).
Lindzey, F. G. and W. D. van Sickle. 1994. Cougar population dynamics in southern Utah. Journal of Wildlife
Mangement 58:619-625.
69
Lindzey, F. G., W. D. van Sickle, S. P. Laing, and C. S. Mecham. 1992. Cougar population response to
manipulation in southern Utah. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:224-227.
Lloyd, H. 1927. Transfer of elk for restocking. Canadian Field Naturalst 41:126-127.
Logan, K. A. and L. L. Irwin. 1985. Mountain lion habitats in the Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming. Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 13: 257-262.
Logan, K., and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring
carnivore. Island Press, Washington, D.C..
Logan, K., and L. L. Sweanor. 2009. Behavior and social organization of a solitary carnivore. Pages 105117 in
M. Hornocker and S. Negri, editors. Cougar: ecology and conservation. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, Ilinois USA.
Lotz, M. A. 2005. Florida mountain lion status report. In: Proceedings of the eighth mountain lion workshop,
ed. R. A. Beausoleil and D. A. Martorello, 73-33. Olympia: Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
Louv, R. 2008. Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin Books of
Chapel Hill, USA.
Manfredo, M. J., H. C. Zinn, L. Sikorowski, and J. Jones. 1998. Public acceptance of mountain lion
management: a case study of Denver, Colorado, and nearby foothills areas. Wildlife Society Bulletin
26:964-970.
Manfredo, M., T. Teel, and A. Bright. 2003. Why are public values toward wildlife changing? Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 8:287-306.
Mattson, D. J. 2007. Managing for human safety in mountain lion range. In Mountain lions of the Flagstaff
Uplands, 2003-2006 progress report, Edited by D.J. Mattson. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
Mattson, D. J. and S. G. Clark. 2009. People, politics, and cougar management. Pages 206-220 in S. Negri and
M. Hornocker, editors. Cougar: ecology and management. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
Illinois.
Murphy, K. M. 1998. Ecology of the cougar (Puma concolor) in the northern Yellowstone ecosystem:
Interactions with prey, bears, and humans. Dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow.
Murphy, K. M., and T. K. Ruth. 2009. Diet and prey selection of a perfect predator. Pages 118137 in M.
Hornocker and S. Negri, editors. Cougar: ecology and conservation. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, Ilinois.
Naughton-Treves, L. R. Grossberg and A. Treves. 2003. Paying for tolerance: rural citizens attitudes towards
wolf depredation and compensation. Conservation Biology 17:1500-1511.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Oregon cougar management plan. Oregon Fish and Wildlife,
Salem, Oregon. 135 pp.
70
Orlando, A. M., S. G. Torres, W. M. Boyce, E. H. Gievetz, E. A. Laca, and M. W. Demment. 2008. Does rural
development fragment puma habitat. Proceedings of the Ninth Mountain Lion Workshop May 5-8,
2008, Sun Valley, Idaho.
Pierce, B. M., V. C. Bleich, and R. T. Bowyer. 2000a. Social organization of mountain lions: Does a land-tenure
system regulate population size? Ecology 81:1533-1543.
Pierce, B. M., V. C. Bleich, and R. T. Bowyer. 2000b. Selection of mule deer by mountain lions and coyotes:
effects of hunting style, body size, and reproductive status. Journal of Mammalogy 81:462472.
Preble, E. A. 1908. A biological investigation of the Athabaska-MacKenzie region. U.S. Biological Service,
N.A. Fauna No. 27.
Quigley, H. and M. Hornocker. 2009. Cougar population dynamics. Pages 5975 in M. Hornocker and S.
Negri, editors. Cougar: ecology and conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ilinois.
Riley, S. J. 1998. Integration of environmental, biological, and human dimensions for management of
mountain lions. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Riley, S. J. and D. J. Decker. 2002. Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 28: 931-939.
Ripple, W. J. and R. L. Beschta. 2006. Linking a cougar decline, trophic cascade, and catastrophic regime shift
in Zion National Park. Biological Conservation 133: 397-408.
Robinson, H. and R. DeSimone. 2011. The Garnet Range mountain lion study: characteristics of a hunted
population in west-central Montana. Final Report, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
Wildlife Bureau, Helena, MT.
Robinson, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, H. S. Cooley, and S. W. Cooley. 2008. Sink populations in carnivore
management: cougar demography and immigration in a hunted population. Ecological Applications
18:10281037.
Ross, P. I., and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern
Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:417-426.
Ross, P. I., M. G. Jalkotzy, and P. Y. Daoust. 1995. Fatal trauma sustained by cougars, Felis concolor, while
attacking prey in southern Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist 109:261263.
Ross, P. I., and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1995. Fates of translocated cougars, Felis concolor, in Alberta. Canadian FieldNaturalist 109:475-476.
Ross, P. I., and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1996. Cougar predation on moose in southwestern Alberta. Alces 32:18.
Ross, P. I., M. G. Jalkotzy, and M. Festa-Bianchet. 1997. Cougar predation on bighorn sheep in southwestern
Alberta during winter. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75:771775.
Ross, P. I., and S. Stevens. 1999. A review of cougar harvest management in Alberta during 1971-71 through
1998-99. Prepared for Alberta Conservation Association and Alberta Natural Resources Service. Arc
Wildlife Services Ltd., Calgary, Alberta
71
Ruth, T. K. 1991. Mountain lion use of an area of high recreational developmentin Big Bend National Park,
Texas. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station.
Ruth, T. K., K. A. Logan, L. L. Sweanor, M. G. Hornocker, L. J. Temple. 1998. Evaluating cougar translocation in
New Mexico. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1264-1275.
Seidensticker, J. C., M. G. Hornocker, W. V. Wiles, and J. P. Messick. 1973. Mountain lion social organization in
the Idaho Primitive Area. Wildlife Monographs 35:160.
Soper, J. D. 1964. The mammals of Alberta. Alberta Department of Industry and Development, Edmonton,
Alberta.
Soper, J. D. 1970. The mammals of Jasper National Park, Alberta. Canadian Wildlife Service Report 10,
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Ottawa, Ontario.
Stelfox, J. G. 194. Elk in northwest Alberta. Land-Forest-Wildlife 6:14-23.
Stelfox, J. G. and R. D. Taber. 1969. Big game in the northern Rocky Mountain coniferous forest. In
Proceedings of the 1968 Symposium, Coniferous forests of the northern Rocky Mountains, Center
for Natural Resources, Missoula, Montana.
Stoner, D. C., M. L. Wolfe, and D. M. Choate. 2006. Cougar exploitation levels in Utah: implications for
demographic structure, population recovery, and metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Wildlife
Management 70:15881600.
Stoner, D. C., W. R. Rieth, M. L. Wolfe, M. B. Mecham, and A. Neville. 2008. Long-distance dispersal of a
female cougar in a basin and range landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:933939.
Sweanor, L. L. and K. A. Logan. 2009. Cougar-human interactions. Pages 190-205 in M. Hornocker and S.
Negri, editors. Cougar: ecology and conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ilinois.
Sweanor, L. L., K. A. Logan, J. W. Bauer, B. Millsap, W. M. Boyce. 2008. Puma and human spatial and temporal
use of a popular California state park. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 1076-1084.
Sweanor, L. L., K. A. Logan, M. G. Hornocker. 2000. Cougar dispersal patterns, metapopulation dynamics, and
conservation. Conservation Biology 14: 798-808.
Thompson, D. J., and J. A. Jenks. 2005. Long distance dispersal by a subadult male cougar from the Black Hills,
South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:818-820.
Thornton, C. 2007. Coexisting with cougars: a study into public perceptions, attitudes and awareness of
cougars on the urban-rural fringe of Calgary, Alberta. Thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
Torres, S. G. 2005. Lion sense: traveling and living safely in mountain lion country. 2nd ed. Falcon Guide,
Guilford, USA.
Torres, S. G., T. M. Manfield, J. E. Foley, T. Lupo, A. Brinkhus. 1996. Mountain lion and human activity in
California: testing speculations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:451-460.
Treves, A. 2009. Hunting for large carnivore conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:1350-1356.
72
Turner, J. W., M. L. Wolfe, and J. F. Kirkpatrick. 1992. Seasonal mountain lion predation on a feral horse
population. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:929934.
Utah Cougar Advisory Group. 2009. Utah Cougar Management Plan. Utah Divison of Wildlife Resources.
Salt Lake City, Utah.
van den Born, R. J. G., R. H. J. Lenders, W. T. de Groot, and E. Huijsman. 2001. The new biophilia: an
exploration of visions of nature in Western countries. Environmental Conservation 28: 65-75.
Van Dyke, F. G., R. H. Brocke, H. G. Shaw, B. B. Ackerman, T. P. Humker, F. G. Lindzey. 1986. Reactions of
mountain lions to logging and human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:95-102.
Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. McGraw Hill, New York, New York.
Webb, N. F., K. H. Knopff, and J. R. Allen. 2012. High cougar mortality following a severe winter in westcentral Alberta, Canada. Wild Felid Monitor 5(2):20
White, K. R., G. M. Koehler, B. T. Malezke, and R. B. Wielgus. 2011. Differential prey use by male and female
cougars in Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:1115-1120.
Williams, C. K., G. Ericsson, and T. A. Heberlein. 2002. A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves and
their reintroduction (1972-2000). Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:575-584.
Williams, J. S., J. J. McCarthy, and H. D. Picton. 1995. Cougar habitat use and food habits on the Montana
Rocky Mountain Front. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 1:16-28.
Wilmers, C. C., D. R. Stahler, R. L. Crabtree, D. W. Smith, and W. M. Getz. 2003. Resource dispersion and
consumer dominance: scavenging at wolf- and hunter-killed carcasses in Greater Yellowstone, USA.
Ecology Letters 6:9961003.
Wilson, S. F. 2009. Recommendations for predator-prey management to benefit the recovery of mountain
caribou in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2006. Mountain Lion Management Plan. Wyoming Game and Fish
Department, Lander, Wyoming.
Young, S. P. 1946. History, life habits, economic status, and control. Pp. 1-173 In S. P. Young and E. A.
Goldman. The puma, mysterious American cat. The American Wildlife Institute, Washington.

WildlifeMgmtPlan Cougars Nov2012B

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WildlifeMgmtPlan Cougars Nov2012B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

ISBN No. 978-1-4601-1318-9 (PDF Version)

Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta

Management Goals, Objectives and Strategies for the Future

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

2.1.1.1 Home range characteristics

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

2.1.2 Population dynamics

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

2.1.2.2 Mortality and Survival

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Central East Slopes Cougar

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

2.1.2.3 Dispersal and source-sink dynamics

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

2.1.3 Cougar-prey relationships

2.1.3.1 Hunting behavior and food habits

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

2.1.3.2 Kill rates

Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

2.1.3.3 Prey selection

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

2.1.3.5 Predation on livestock

2.2 Cougar-Human Conflict

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

2.2.2 Root causes of conflicts

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

2.2.3 Methods to reduce conflict and increase tolerance

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

2.3 Historic and Current Status in Alberta

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Management Plan for Cougars in Alberta

Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 8

Winter season limited to January in WMUs 300-312.

Winter season reduced to month of January

Fall hunting season abolished